Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 November 5 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al Shal[edit]

Saleh Al Shal (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 is only one reference and all the hits I found are the mirror copy of this Wikipedia article. Also, just because someone is a millionaire, it doesn't make them notable in anyway. This fails WP:GNG. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:50, 4 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 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auska's Undefeated Streak[edit]

Auska's Undefeated Streak (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)

Undefeated streak that is not notable in and of itself. Another editor and I have both tried to redirect it to Asuka (wrestler)#WWE but have both been reverted by the page creator, so taking it to AfD. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article because it is Vandalism. I Do Not allow Vandalism TheUltamateBoss3900 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asuka (wrestler)#WWE. It's not vandalism, and this subject isn't notable on its own. An {{R from misspelling}} or even {{R from related word}} should do it. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not independently notable, not sure it is a viable search term, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not independently notable and not a viable redirect given that the wrestler's name is spelt incorrectly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - I want to improve the article and have valuable sources. TUB3900 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So where are they? You're going on holiday. Provide them in the article, otherwise it's a given that it will be deleted. 2001:8003:591D:2400:1CBF:2DCB:FEE1:4820 (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It does not warrant its own article, can easily be summarized in her article, which already has more detail than here - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Asuak undefeated streak is biggest than Goldberg's. However, I don't see her streak recieved the same level of coverage and notability. It's not like Undertaker's a Streak that recieved a lot of coverage during the years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Auska's Streak started in 2015 TUB3900 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't !vote more than once. Also, your above comment doesn't in any way address why this separate article is needed. Currently the article consists of three unsourced sentences, which simply duplicate information which is already covered in Asuka's article, better written and with sources...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep arguments are not just in the numerical minority, but also less convincing overall, and in one case, from a user with limited history. On the other hand, User:StraussInTheHouse's summary of the sources seems difficult to ignore. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Rafael[edit]

AJ Rafael (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:MUSICBIO. Created by an editor who appears to be a fangirl, with the reasoning "He's someone the Filipino community admires and looks up to"... and Mr. Rafael certainly seems to be an admirable man, but that's not a reason for having a Wikipedia article. The two best sources in the article are from Billboard and MTV – the Billboard one is for a "battle of the bands" contest run by the magazine (which he didn't win) and naturally there's a write-up of the final in Billboard [2], but I'm not convinced the contest was notable, seeing as nobody else outside the magazine covered it. The MTV interview is a blog post (archived here [3]), not a post from MTV staff. There's also a short interview from 2010 in his local paper [4]. You'll notice that these sources are from 2011 or before – in 2014 Mr. Rafael announced that he was winding down his music output and touring, because even with 100 million YouTube viewers, only 300 people came to his entire concert tour [5]. Since then, his appearances have been one-off performances [6], making moves into TV and film [7] or publicising videos on his YouTube channel [8]... but these are all passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is borderline notability; I can be persuaded either way. For now, the fact that his work has reached broadly across borders is notability enough for me. However, the size of the article is disproportionate with its reputation. I think it should be shorten to reflect its limited celebrity status. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 20:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm inclined to keep, as even if a subject may lose notability over time, that doesn't change the fact that it was once notable, and per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Therefore I don't think it's a strong argument that all sources are from 2011 or earlier. In 2011, there were sources that established him as notable enough, so the article was notable then and remains notable now.--Manbemel (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Manbemel: I didn't think the sources from pre-2011 were particularly notable or reliable either, hence my nomination in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the MTV interview introduction gives notability enough, at least to doubt that the article deserves deletion. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, it doesn't matter that it is in a blog form as long as it comes from a reliable independent publisher, as MTV is. When in doubt, I think "keep" is the best option.--Manbemel (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I respect your opinion. If it survives the AfD though, I think the article needs severe pruning. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As of right now this is very close to a Keep, but I'd like the consensus to be a bit stronger before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Red Roses (AJ Rafael album) (as the only relevant article). I've read through the disputed sources and I come down slightly on the other side, I don't think the sourcing is sufficient. It does only need a little more though to tip it over. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nosebagbear, I think the album article is even less notable than the artist, and therefore not a valid redirect target. I can't find any information on the record label "Thirty Seven Records" - it's either self-released or on a tiny non-notable local label. It has absolutely no reviews or information that I can find outside of Spotify and social media - the "AllMusic review" cited is in fact a user review, which means the article is totally unsourced (I was waiting for the result of this AfD to see whether I would redirect it or AfD it as well). Richard3120 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: - Hi, I don't normally consider the notability of my redirect targets (esp if there's only one) so long as it's not currently being PRODed/AfDed. You are probably correct as to the target's notability. In my view it is marginally preferable to redirect it now, even if the target and redirection lapses after it is also deleted (if it is). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The album article has been speedily deleted, so the redirect idea is no longer an option. Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nowhere near enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and comes nowhere near to satisfying any criterion of WP:NMUSIC. I don't know what other people are seeing that convinces them he's notable. The album article should be speedy deleted as an A9 if this article is deleted. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last re-list, as a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "keep" opinions don't indicate which sources specifically, they think, establish notability - and I don't see any in the article that could do so. Sandstein 17:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient media coverage to demonstrate notability. A simple Google search turns up little about him in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Subject matter meets some of the criteria’s per WP:MUSICBIO. There are additional sources on the web with editorial controls about the said subject, specifically in the first link of simple web searches, it could be useful to perform quality improvements on the article. Best of Luck.

Is Nutin 09:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

@Soltesh: which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does the subject meet? As far as I can see, only criterion 1 might possibly be met, and even then it's doubtful - as the Billboard source is promoting its own talent competition, it's not independent, and everything else apart from the MTV interview is trivial mentions. Could you let us know what additional sources you have found? Richard3120 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: per my check he also meets criterion 4 on this article the image which shows him performing at a sold out concert at Anaheim (even though the said source wasn’t centered around the concert) here [9] correct me if am wrong, though he stylishly passes that criterion, he seem to somehow meet the 10th criteria as he has also performed a live version of his song(s) for Coke Studio [10]. Also consider WP:ENTERTAINER as another alternative, the said subject meets criterion 2 of it. Good luck.

Is Nutin 13:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree on criterion 4 of WP:MUSICBIO - the venue only has a capacity of 250, I don't think performing to 250 people in your home town is particularly notable, artists do that all the time all over the world. His fan base doesn't seem particularly large to me to pass WP:ENTERTAINER either. However, you are right that he has performed a duet on a Filipino TV show, and that counts in his favour. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image showing someone playing to a crowd of a couple of hundred people at a local gig isn't anywhere near enough to indicate that inclusion in an encyclopedia is warranted. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Thanks for confirming. @Michig:, I understand your opinion about the the said subject, however; systemic bias is a bug, not a feature, AJ has few sources which warrants merit and they where written in unbiased form.

Is Nutin 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There is just not enough indication of notability, or in depth meaningful coverage from independent sources. Curdle (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Curdle:, I did highlighted few citations certifying AJ for certain criterion’s per WP:MUSICBIO, but if you think he still fails it, basic standards of WP:ENTERTAINER should be used to ultimately determine notability.

Is Nutin 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete the sources provided simply don't meet the depth and independence needed for WP:MUSICBIO.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.letssingit.com/a.j.-rafael-t9t47 Yes No No Just a database entry. ✘ No
https://myspace.com/ajrafael No No No WP:YAMB ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/user/ilajil No No No WP:SPS ✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/472632/billboard-battle-of-the-bands-2011-main-page Yes Yes No Passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGpsgq9lKqY No No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
All the other sources are deadlinks and no archives contain their contents.
Therefore, delete.
SITH (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn thanks to RebeccaGreen's help with newspaper sources. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Furrh[edit]

Chris Furrh (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 multiple things: WP:GNG for lack of secondary source coverage (in WP:BEFORE search nothing came up), WP:ENT says had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, but is not met as he has only one prominent role whereas multiple is needed and WP:ANYBIO says The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, he was only nominated for one and not several times. Tagged for verification issues for 8 years now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this was a child star in a time prior to the internet the likely hood that there are internet references other than film listings are very remote, even if the film is notable. A improvement notice should be put on not removal to allow for this to be kept. It is especially an interesting story considering his later escapades which have not been added.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jovanmilic97: WP:NACTOR says roles in notable films - Lord of the Flies and a Family for Joe are on Wikipoedia as notable, while Exile is on Wikipedia for deletion as their is no references - looking on web there is very little from IDMb probably due to it's age - but it was part of Walt Disney's Wonderful World series which is notable here. He is also already noted in Wikipedia page 12th Youth in Film Awards. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Davidstewartharvey: Well WP:NACTOR says *significant* roles in notable films whereas Family for Joe one was not a significant role (he is not even credited for it on its wiki page). Also wanted to say you are right about WP:BURO, and thanks for clarifying things around! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having a quick search on Google the character he played was substantial but only in the original telefilm, and when the programme was changed to a series another actor played the part. The Wikipedia page is mainly about the programme. The imdb page linked to the TV series. If you look at the film page you will see Chris furry is on the front cover of the video.2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:2046:EFB9:29E1:7DC0
CommentI did put a ref from the British Film Institute page which Chris Furrh is listed as second billing behind Robert Mitchum who plays the aforementioned Joe. I also looked on IMDb and yes there is two pages - the film one does clearly have Chris Furrh's picture on the front cover.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:2046:EFB9:29E1:7DC0 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentJovanmilic97 this is not a slur towards you but different interpretations from what are not rules but guidelines WP:BURO. Remember what Jimmy Wales said when he co-created Wikipedia Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was enough coverage in newspapers of the time to meet WP:GNG: Philadelphia Daily News, 16 March 1990, (Jack (Chris Furrh), leader of the primitives, is the only character effectively sketched in this movie. He convincingly intimidates and charms the other boys in the group ...)[11]; The Baltimore Sun, two page spread on Lord of the Flies with an interview with the two lead boys, Getty and Furrh, and the comment "the boys are all good actors, particularly the leads ..."[12]; the Tampa Bay Times said Getty's performance was "no match for Chris Furrh, the intense, though too-puny, Jack" [13]; though not all coverage was positive - the Calgary Herald had "echoing his pale performance is Chris Furrh .... both actors are devoid of emotion" [14], and The Pittsburgh Press said of him in A Family for Joe, "the self-conscious, amateurish affectations of Chris Furrh as Nick"[15]. The local (to Furrh) Austin American-Statesman had a profile of him before the premiere of Lord of the Flies.[16]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:26, 11 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. I don't think we're doing to come to an agreement of what to do with this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Campbell (politician)[edit]

Tony Campbell (politician) (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)
  • Keep. There are two issues here: firstly, as to speedy delete, that would be out of process, because the previous AfD was for the pre-HEY version of the article. Procedurally speaking, the new article should not be speedily deleted, but instead the attempt to remove it again is properly here as a second AfD, to be settled by the community in the customary manner.
Which brings us to the second, most important issue: does the new, improved work meet Wikipedia article policies? The original article AfD was concerned with notability, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing the subject have been found and cited in the new article. WP:NPOL does not require that the person be an elected incumbent politician and is not ipso facto determinative of notability for a Wikipedia mainspace article. Notability is established by virtue of having met the WP:N primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The citations provided in this new article clearly demonstrate that this is so. Neither WP:GNG nor NPOL require that qualifying coverage be non-local.‎
In other words, the specific guidelines for politicians are not authoritative or definitive for determining notability anyway, only the basic standard WP:PERSON should be used to ultimately determine notability. WP:N states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". The substantial RS citations in the new article establish that the person now has in-depth, substantial coverage from multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources and indeed meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON.
Therefore this article's encyclopedic value is evident and useful as a reference for the Wikipedia reader seeking more information than a mere redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 alone provides. We thus have here a notable person, a published author and major party candidate for high elective office of national significance, the US Senate. The new article fully complies with all Wikipedia policies and really should be a Snow Keep.  JGHowes  talk 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some other candidate-related AfDs that resulted in Delete/Redirect/No Consensus due to only having press coverage related to candidacy. It's common to have one of those results for a candidate that didn't exceed coverage.
  • The Speedy Deletion was redone as an AfD. But my SD was valid as I still could not find anything to suffice for WP:NPOL and many of my experiences with political candidate AfDs with as many as 20 sources were still deleted as it was WP:MILL coverage. Hope this helps. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: @Bkissin: @Papaursa: @SportingFlyer: @Bearcat: @Ceyockey: Hi, all of you believed that this candidate for Senate was not notable in contributed to a previous AfD last month (link is at top of discussion) with the same subject as this article. Would you mind offering insight on this AfD on the same subject? I didn't create the article and I didn't renominate it, but it is worth your opinions once more. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Redditaddict69: You have mischaracterized my contribution to the previous AfD. I STARTED that page from a redirect you had created. I did NOT support deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 per the previous deletion discussion. If I remember correctly, there was a possible hit-and-run mentioned in the article previously and it looks like that has been removed. The language is still lacking in many areas of NPOV bordering on PROMO, and the bottom line continues to be that candidate fails NPOL and the current coverage is campaign related. If the Campbell campaign wants to keep this information, they can help pad out the candidates section of the election article. Bkissin (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, What do you mean, If the Campbell campaign wants to keep this information, they can help pad out the candidates section of the election article.? Surely you're not suggesting COI editing?  JGHowes  talk 20:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL and I don't think he will after the election (according to my crystal ball). I don't believe he meets any other SNG and his coverage is typical for anyone running for a U.S. Senate seat. My participation in AfDs of other non-incumbents running for House and Senate seats this year has led me to believe that a redirect to the article on the election is the usual result. I certainly don't believe that an individual stand-along article is justified at this time. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018. I searched for independent coverage of his books at last month's AfD, but found none. Certainly had an honourable career as an academic and as an Army chaplain. What would persuade me to change my mind is national coverage of him, noting that several candidates in each party are getting national coverage because pollsters and pundits them within range of upsetting a sitting Rep. or Sen., or winning a sear long held by the other Party. But I am not seeing that, nor am I seeing national coverage of him, with the recent exception of a little national attention to Campbell's criticism of his opponent's support for opening the border to admit the "caravan." MD Sen. Cardin Says US 'Should Try to Help' Migrant Caravan, GOP Opponent Blasts Comments If someone can show WP:SIGCOV of Campbell in the national media, I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: yes, I saw that Fox news story and was going to add it eventually, until this SD/AfD took center stage. Now that I find myself in full rescue mode, I've included that along with other edits today to try to address the NPOV concerns voiced here, as well. See this diff. JGHowes  talk 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources. Has merit. Written in unbiased manner. ~jeremycec —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep May qualify for notability as an academic, plus there are a multitude of sources about him. No need to delete/redirect. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement seems very vague. It will help the discussion if the "multitude of sources" (that don't spin off of his candidacy - WP:MILL) can be mentioned and examples of his notability as an academic are given. What notability guideline does he follow that other failed election candidates don't? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuff like this I guess. I know I'm not going to change your mind. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That citation, "Tony Campbell, a political science professor at Towson University, discussed Trump's speech with ABC2 In Focus," is to a local Baltimore network affiliate station. And it's pretty routine campaign coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An issue that may occur here is that the election isn't for another ~10 days, so if this is kept before then and then he loses, what should be done then? A third AfD isn't a good scenario, especially after 2 within the span of under 2 months have already been nominated. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per last month's AfD, and restore redirect per Redditaddict: nothing new under the sun here, and a complete and utter waste of time. SportingFlyer talk 12:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record and fwiw, I created this article from scratch on Oct. 17 unaware at the time of the previously deleted article and AfD (because a different filename was chosen). When I processed the OTRS ticket for File:Tony Campbell.jpg and saw the other three candidates at United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 had linked articles but not him, it seemed to me he should have one too, as a matter of perceived impartiality. Bearing in mind Wikipedia's role as the #1 online encyclopedia, I think we do the reader a disservice by a rigidly deletionist NPOL where major party candidates for high office races such as US Senate and governor are concerned, but that's a VP discussion for another day.  JGHowes  talk 13:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That conversation is currently ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates, which to be fair has become a bit of a train wreck. Also, per WP:OSE, one or arguably two of those other blue-linked articles should also be sent to AfD. SportingFlyer talk 14:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right across the bar, the candidates in the Senate election article who do have standalone articles to link to all have some other claim of notability besides just the fact of being candidates per se, such as having already held another notable office or having preexisting notability in a different career than politics per se. In one or two cases the basis for preexisting notability might be questionable at best, but they all have articles for some other reason independent of their status as candidates. It's not our role to provide "equal time" to every candidate in an election — that's what Ballotpedia is for, while Wikipedia's role is to maintain articles about officeholders, not about every single person who aspires to become one. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Yes, this is a complete waste of time. I SDed it but User:JGHowes contested it. Should be closed now as a Speedy Delete. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JGHowes: If Wikipedia had an article for every failed candidate who barely even campaigned, WP would be more of a mess than it already is. They'd all be stubs that say "(party) Candidate for (office) in (state)". Guidelines are put in place for a reason. Please don't try and undermine that. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, Oh come now, such a bitey comment as accusing this long-time admin of trying to "undermine"  guidelines is uncalled-for. There's an ongoing community difference of opinion as to the extent to which general notability is applied by NPOL, as SportingFlyer‎ noted above. Indeed, today's Signpost reported:

"As ‎‎the US midterm elections approach, users are debating ‎changes to the notability criteria for candidates for elected office‎"

.
If an article has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" (as this one does), then notability exists. NPOL does not carve out an exception and say, "unless the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article is campaign-related". Quite the opposite, in fact.
Vague innuendos of COI and accusations of malicious intent to those with whom one disagrees are uncalled-for. ‎Your reductio ad absurdum argument about a mass of stubs that would result doesn't wash either.‎ An article having "significant reliable sources" would hardly be a "stub", would it? And, if he loses (as the polls predict), so what? Is there not some encyclopedic value in Wikipedia having that information available for a student two years from now, say, doing research for a term paper on Maryland politics, fr'instance? I respect community consensus and if the outcome of this AfD is "Redirect", then so be it.  JGHowes  talk 21:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JGHowes: Has Campbell exceeded WP:ROUTINE coverage? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JGHowes: and fine, maybe "users are debating changes to the notability criteria for candidates for elected office" but no policy as of today states that they are notable. Come back and recreate this when that policy exists. As of now, there is no reason WP should have Campbell's article. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with including that information on the article about the election for the student who's doing research. There's a huge problem, in my mind, with creating articles about failed political campaigns and having that be the entirety of the encyclopedic entry for the person running (WP:BLP1E). I mentioned on the thread I directed you to earlier the vast majority losing U.S. candidates for office in the 70's and 80's don't have articles, which arguably confirms concerns about WP:RECENTISM (I looked into creating one or two articles to see if they would stick, but it wasn't worth it.) As a result our current consensus views the vast majority of campaign coverage as routine for notability reasons. SportingFlyer talk 21:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware that the independent candidate Neal Simon had an article created as well. This should probably be up for an AfD as well, just so we can better suss out notability outside of the campaign. Bkissin (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or restore redirect. His basis for notability has not changed at all since the September discussion — as of today, he is still only a candidate in an election he has not won yet — and the volume of referencing has not increased enough to deem his candidacy special (and no, the historic firsts that a person will represent if they win an election they haven't won yet don't make a candidate special — people are notable or non-notable on the basis of what's already true today, not on the basis of what might become true in the future.) And this article has not demonstrated that he has preexisting notability as a writer of books, either — you get a person over that bar by showing that he got media coverage for writing books, not by metareferencing the existence of his books to their buy-it pages on online bookstores. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP Policies relevant to the discussion and/or mentioned above: WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:PERSON, WP:N, WP:HEY, WP:OSE. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates to the US Senate. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one has yet offered a satisfactory explanation as to how a guideline supercedes policy or why an exception to general notability uniquely applies to a politician. If a person is a local DJ, they often have WP articles referencing local news only. Or a middle school that won a blue ribbon award 10 years ago has an article. The point is, we seem to have a higher bar for notability of politicians that exceeds N and GNG. Nor is this being applied evenly; if we're going to be comparing other artic‎les about would-be politicos, how about a remarkably similar case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Stitt (2nd nomination) that was also a 2nd AfD closed by admin Sandstein‎, who kept it as "no consensus", saying Opinion is split between keeping (per GNG because of the news coverage) and delete/redirect (because of the routine nature of election coverage). This reflects a broader disagreemeent among editors about whether articles about major-party candidates for significant offices in two-party systems should be normally kept or not; but we'll not resolve this matter here. Exactly.  JGHowes  talk 23:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An unelected candidate for political office can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This meets that requirement, and is neutral and well-sourced. And, as stated in the article, if elected, he would be the first African-American Senator from Maryland. DDGator (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single candidate in every election can always claim to have met that criterion, and thus exempt themselves from having to actually win the election first. So no, that test is not passed by the fact that some campaign coverage happens to exist — it's only satisfied if and when so much more campaign coverage exists than other candidates are also getting that he has a credible claim to being special. But that's not what the campaign coverage here shows — it just shows bog-standard run of the mill "there's an election on, and the local media's job is to cover that", not "this candidate is uniquely more notable than most other candidates". And no, people are not handed a notability freebie just because of what might become true in the future, either: the fact that he'll be his state's first African-American senator if he wins an election he hasn't won yet is not a valid notability claim in and of itself. It doesn't lock him in as already having any permanent historic significance that will permanently remain his even if he loses, because if he doesn't win then the next African American senate candidate after him will be able to repeat the same claim all over again. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DDGator: See WP:Routine for more info. It essentially says WP:Mill coverage may not necessarily make one notable. And the coverage that Campbell has received does not make him notable because ANY Maryland Senate candidate would get the same amount of coverage. And possible being the first African American GOP Senator from Maryland alone does not make him notable. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election is the day after tomorrow. Unless he pullos off a dramatic upset, i.e., unless he wins, I continue to think delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the election is not directly relevant to notability. Most often, a person who obtains office will garner more notability, but the mere fact of office-holding itself does not confer notability, nor does a loss deter from notability. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 00:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL is just a thumbnail guide. WP:N circumscribes and is the actual guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Sparkie82: @SportingFlyer: WP:MILL and WP:ROUTINE are relevant to the discussion of notability. Yes, WP:N typically overrides NPOL, but routine and run-of-the-mill coverage typically doesn't contribute to WP:N. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is an essay, not a guideline. It's irrelevant. WP:ROUTINE describes routine coverage as "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...". The 18+ articles that this guy has gotten include full 5W, inverted pyramid, hard-news coverage. That's not the formulaic, daily or weekly coverage contemplated by WP:ROUTINE. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a notable candidate, and we reached consensus on this. He has since lost. If he would have won, he would have been presumptively notable through WP:NPOL. Not sure why it's considered a "thumbnail guide." SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly – the coverage on his campaign wasn't out of the ordinary... it was just run of the mill. No notability established. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All those subordinate guides (including WP:NPOL) are thumbnail because they are "criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations... [or to] initiate a deletion discussion." Those guides are quick and dirty rule-of-thumb initial checks, but WP:N is the controlling guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently lists 24 cites. Four of those are mere catalog listings, one is self-sourced and one is FOX. That leaves 18 cites from credible sources including national and regional sources such as NYT, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun and several from radio/TV. The subject has some notability from his academic work and the possibility of the first black GOP senator from Maryland adds to the media interest. Also, the proximity to Washington, D.C. causes additional national coverage. WP:N calls for significant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources, which this guy easily meets. (Disclosure: I was invited to participate in this discussion on my talk page.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Sparkie82: As I have told everyone here that has voted to keep, please read WP:ROUTINE. "First black GOP Senator from Maryland" is way too specific, by the way. Fine, first black senator from a specific state is notable. First GOP senator from a specific state is notable. But not first (race) (party) (office) from (state) -- that's just way too many things. The sources in the national coverage describe his candidacy which is WP:MILL coverage! That coverage just happens whenever any random person runs for office, and I can assure you that not all candidates are notable, and neither is Campbell. See WP:Articles for deletion/Jane Raybould, a 2018 election cycle Senate candidate that had her page redirected to the election. She would've been the first Female Democrat to represent Nebraska in the Senate but that didn't make her notable, did it? Justifying his notability due to having a "proximity to Washington, D.C." is absurd. I went to Maryland and saw a rock 20 miles outside of DC but that rock isn't notable (I'm not comparing him to a rock, I am saying that just being near the capital doesn't make anything notable). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I just mentioned above, WP:ROUTINE describes routine coverage such as "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...". All those 18 or so articles about this guy (including NYT, WAPO, BAL-SUN) are full 5W, inverted pyramid, hard-news coverage. That's not the formulaic, daily or weekly coverage described by WP:ROUTINE. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post and Baltimore Sun are local political coverage which we typically consider routine in the coverage of candidates. The New York Times cite is titled "Maryland Primary Election Results" and is not actually an article. Plus, he lost, so he definitively fails WP:NPOL now. SportingFlyer talk 00:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkie82: SportingFlyer is correct here about the NYT article. GNG and N consider passing mentions as insufficient to pass those guidelines. It has been established repeatedly that Campbell is not notable, especially because he lost. He fails WP:NAUTHOR as well so there are no specific notability guidelines here that would allow this article to be kept. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update as of tonight, he lost the election substantially. The vast majority of the coverage talks about him as a candidate for the race, and the remainder does not grant notability. We can safely restore the initial redirect. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, either. Marquardtika (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The same arguments are being made by the same people, ie., the deletionist view that general notability as it is widely accepted across Wikipedia is subsumed in the case of unelected politicians‎ vs the inclusionist view that as long as reliable sources are amply cited, that suffices. The result in other AfD's is often no consensus, viz, 

WP:Articles for deletion/Linda Weber,  ‎ WP:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (2nd nomination)‎ WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Jacob‎

In this instance, it should be noted that Campbell's political activism in the African-American community long predated his run for the US Senate this year, getting national attention as far back as a decade ago, as cited in the article.  JGHowes  talk 00:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JGHowes: Wow. All three of your examples were deleted in subsequent AfDs. What was your point with this comment?
WP:Articles for deletion/Linda Weber (2nd nomination)
WP:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (3rd nomination)
WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Jacob (2nd nomination)
Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‎

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellina Offoha[edit]

Marcellina Offoha (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 individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this posting up some, her work pertains to sociological studies in Nigeria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.79.98 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her work is cited in reputable journals and books by academics in diverse fields including African-American archaeology, family studies, history and sociology of Nigeria, health and health services in Nigeria, theatre in Nigeria, etc. The evidence indicates that she meets WP:NACADEMIC, although the current article does not do justice to it. However, that is not a reason for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Marcellina Offoha also publishes under the names Marcellina Ulunma Okehie-Offoha, Marcellina U Okehie-Offoha, Marcellina U Offoha, and M U Offoha. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If there is any notability, the article does not show it. But the question is whether it might be meet WP:PROF if it were written to demonstrate the notability. Since she is not notable as administrator--she's Assistant Dean of Students, a beginning administrative position in any university anywhere in the world. So the notability depends to what extent her works are cited. I see only one significant published work, a book which she co-edited, and wrote one chapter: Ethnic and cultural diversity in Nigeria, (not "Ethnic and cultural diversity in America "--the WP article got the title wrong) in which she wrote the chapter, "The Igbo." The book has been cited 26 times in Google Scholar; her specific chapter seems to have been cited only 2 times. [1] The only other work in WorldCat is her doctoral thesis. Several other articles are listed in Google Scholar, but none of them are cited. The one article mentioned in the WP article is in a journal not indexed by any service I can find. This is not a situation where we might want to accommodate our standards, considering the disadvantages of doing academic work in her region. But that is not the problem here--the problem is that this is too early in her career. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  • Comment I have had another look at the citations of the book Ethnic and cultural diversity in Nigeria. As well as writing one chapter, the subject of this article wrote the introduction, and of course co-edited the volume. Most of the citations I mentioned above refer to the book as a whole (so including her role as co-editor), some refer to the Introduction, and some to her specific chapter. Only a few refer to another chapter (eg the archaeological papers). I still think she takes the credit for almost all the citations, in widely diverse fields. But I'm sure that anyone who wants to know more about her can find information elsewhere, if this article is deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RebeccaGreen You seem to be having some sort of connection with the aforementioned subject, per my check also there doesn’t seem to be any clearer source to proof that she’s notable, perhaps she might have passed smell-taste with your research, but also consider WP:TOOSOON since there’s no evidence of notability.

Is Nutin 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knights and Lords Trading LLC[edit]

Knights and Lords Trading LLC (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)

Promotionally sounding article about a local company lacking depth of coverage and reliable independent sources. Sourcing appears largely based on promo pieces/advertorials. Editing history of the author implies COI. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional, advert, extremely poor writing style, "bespoke" article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article has been moved to Knights and Lords Tailoring, but the above still applies. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor sources again. Highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 23:20, 11 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gars Abbey[edit]

Gars Abbey (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, fails WP:RS as only sourced by related sources and tourism sites. Info inconsistent with sources and the French and German Wikipedia. The Banner talk 22:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the French and German encyclopedias have articles, it seems reasonable for us to do likewise. Any issues of accuracy are a matter of ordinary editing and the worst case would be merger into a broader article such as Gars am Inn per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A monastery founded in 768 and still in operation seems inherently notable. Can the nominator be specific about "Info inconsistent with sources"? The errors should certainly be fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The interesting part is that to my experience the correction of errors in fact never happens, not by the author, not by the editors who claim that it can be fixed. The Banner talk 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Banner: You have told us the information is not consistent with the sources or with the French and German wikis. This will not be fixed if you keep the inconsistencies secret. What are they? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. –Vami♜_IV♠ 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Against speedy keep. Can someone list any errors? Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG can not be denied, when there are puplications spanning centuries covering the subject. Agathoclea (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable building, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't even see why there's debate about this! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Really, there are some ludicrous nominations around. This is clearly one of them. Very obviously notable as an historic building and institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is another example of how to promote substandard articles. Something that is harming Wikipedia. The Banner talk 19:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD is not cleanup. We are here to determine whether the topic is worth having an article on, not whether it's a good article. And the topic is clearly worth having an article on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am still curious about what upset the nominator so much they felt this little article had to be purged from Wikipedia. @The Banner: which error or errors here do you consider most harmful to Wikipedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try to read the other articles. The Banner talk 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The French article is a translation of the German text. The German text cites no sources, so is unusable. It is followed by a list of canons regular with a source, which this version did not contain. @The Banner: is the missing canon list the reason you feel the article should be scrubbed from Wikipedia? If so, you will be relieved to learn that I have corrected the problem. Copy and paste to the rescue! Are there any other problems? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seriously, I add some unsourced but plausible content from the de:Kloster Gars article with {{fact}} tags. Some of the information from this version could be added to the German version to improve it in return, but my German language skills are not good enough for that. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, you often claimed that. And with that stance you promote substandard articles. The Banner talk 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep - topic clearly notable, GNG met. AfD is not for cleanup. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If the content is wrong, it can be corrected. A lack of sources is not a ground for AFD. The appropriate course is to tag it for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article appearing in french and German means it's notable. Sources may be added later. Alex-h (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:BUILDINGS (notable people visited it, historical etc). JC7V-talk 07:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, apart from anything else - even on Google Books, it's evident that there are sources from the 18th-20th centuries, and there are no doubt others which do not appear there. It also meets WP:NBUILD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Politics[edit]

Whiskey Politics (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)

Highly advertorialized article about a podcast and web series, whose claims of notability are resting on primary sources rather than reliable ones. As always, the notability test for media content is not just the ability to provide technical verification via iTunes and YouTube and its own self-published web presence that the thing exists, but rather requires it to be the subject of media coverage in sources other than itself. But the only sources here that are actually media outlets at all are not about Whiskey Politics, but simply feature the host being interviewed about some other subject besides either himself or the podcast -- which is not support for the notability of the podcast, because that "coverage" is not about the podcast. Simply nothing here, either in the body text or the references, cuts it at all under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, we disagree with requesting "Whiskey Politics with Dave Sussman" should be deleted. This program is widely heard on multiple platforms. Also, Mr. Sussman provides long form, fair and challenging interviews of today's politicians, authors, and cultural icons on a television show under it's own name, now on America's Voice News Network, and is currently engaged in discussions to expand on other networks. The Whiskey Politics podcast also broadcasts live from multiple political and cultural conventions throughout the United States.

America's Voice News: https://americasvoicenews.com/playlist/5b157907e0405/ Freedom Fest: https://freedomfest2018.sched.com/speaker/dave_sussman.1y0qfk3y

We would ask those who are considering deleting this, kindly provide any suggestions to edit this page so the Editors will see to allow it to remain. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlebeach (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep articles on the basis of what the show claims about itself — we keep or delete articles on the basis of how much reliable source coverage the topic does or does not have about it in media. That is, the notability test is not "what does the show describe itself as being?" — it is "have other media outlets, not directly affiliated with it, devoted their editorial resources to doing journalism about it?" Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unambiguous promotional effort. This article only exists to promote the show and its host, as is evident from the lightly paraphrased regurgitation of biographical blurbs, and from the PR-style response from the article's creator above. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion (see WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. Promotional article whose claims of notability are from primary sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:32, 11 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. Michig (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eunice Sanborn (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)

2 AfDs produced a no consensus result, but times have changed and the vast numbers of SPAs that historically flooded such discussions are now gone. There's only routine coverage here and, once stripped of all the navel-gazing longevity puffery that borders on self-parody, we're left with an almost textbook example of WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Just being characterized as a "titleholder" reeks of morbid fancruft. Her bio is otherwise not notable; let her rest in peace. — JFG talk 23:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because the subject has only WP:ROUTINE coverage, not WP:SIGCOV demonstrating notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. If anything, this article demonstrates the falsity of notability by supposed age titles, since they can be vainly given and taken away at any time - it's not a real accomplishment like building a grand bridge, discovering a planet, or inventing a vaccine. Real accomplishments stick, age fancruft doesn't. The article also clearly fails WP:NOPAGE. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to list(s). NOPAGE as usual. "The two were the first to build a concrete bottom pool in Cherokee County at that time" -- says it all. EEng 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. Consensus not to keep this article. Redirecting instead of deleting is necessary to provide attribution for the merger. Sandstein 13:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (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 has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc.

I went ahead and merged all remaining wiki-appropriate material into Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. Every unique piece of information that remains is either WP:OR or WP:POV in this editor's opinion.

The existence of this article as a unique page sidelines it and fosters more and more conspiratorial discussion and POV and less and less verifiability, reliable-source usage, and wiki-appropriate style. The former AfD was kept mainly because of POV-editors (many of whom have now been banned) and issues with article length in the aforementioned merged article. Those issues have largely been dealt with in the intervening years.

Because the merge already basically happened and this independent article is just a duplication of the other information with additional POV and OR, I think it's in a weird limbo in that regard. A new AfD would be more prudent. I'm very happy to point to specific passages in this article that meet OR or POV criteria if requested.

The main issue as I see it is that this article reads as exactly what it has been for over a decade: two different POVs edit-warring over small tiny discrepancies. Every time a new conspiracy theory is invented about the moon landing, it shows up on this page, sans reliable sources or evidence of notability. This sort of thing belongs on a forum deep in the darkweb, not here on the wiki.Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree for the most part, but I actually think Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings serves a vital public service. Third-party evidence of the landings is perhaps the best way to convince fringe theorists of the fringe nature of their ideas. Placing it all on one page as a list is also a great use of an encyclopedic format. The third-party article also doesn't suffer from many of the POV and RS and OR issues that the AfD'd article is rampant with. As Reagan later said to Gorbachev, "доверяй, но проверяй." Trust but verify. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The useful sourced content should be merged into Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings and Moon landing conspiracy theories, as applicable. Brandmeistertalk 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - I agree with the notion that having multiple articles covering essentially the same general topic need to be put together. Issues of reliable sources and original research should instead be dealt with on the talk page as ordinary talk page discussion, although I should note there are published reliable sources which could cover at least some of those issues on the proposed page can be found with a little bit of effort from noted astrophysicists and others who have done both "popular" and scholarly reviews of these topics as well. This page does not need to be in a separate article. ---Robert Horning (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One reason that this was split off is that Wikipedia:Article size suggest that an article be no larger than about 50-60KB. This one is now 299KB. But perhaps those guidelines are out of date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it just seems that 50-60KB is an antiquated limit. As Facebook stretches internet across the globe via satellite, and Google weaves Fiber into every home in 20+ municipalities, who really has a dial-up connection anymore? That was the original reasoning for limits like these. Further, the article size page itself quotes the existence of 2,000+ articles with sizes above 200KB. It stands to reason that an article such as Moon landing conspiracy theories with a wealth of images is a perfect exemption to an informal rule like this. Especially when one considers the collateral damage of a separate article -- less attention from editors, repetition of so much information, and a plethora of editorial issues. Plus, as I say above, the other articles already duplicate all the wiki-appropriate content! There really isn't any important detail left to be merged in, not that I could see. The AfD'd article just expounds in more detail about minute tiny conspiracy theories with non-notable back-and-forth argumentation and quite a bit of repetition. After a careful read, I couldn't find any more un-merged info than I and other editor's had already prudently merged into the main article, where that controversial content will get the attention it deserves. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think that one of the reasons at the time was that some browsers couldn't handle > 64KB. Surely that isn't an issue now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent nom. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deletion will just be the reversion of an ill-advised split. SpinningSpark 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still a needless WP:FORK of WP:FRINGE theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you want to end the discussion because of SNOWBALL? The reasons for deletion are correct. We did a lot of work on this article, when conspiracy buffs would put in something they saw or heard somewhere and we would do a lot of work to track down photos which show what they were talking about, etc. But I don't think this article has a snowball's chance of surviving. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those photographs will still survive and live on in the other articles mentioned! They serve a vital public service and I think Moon landing conspiracy theories in particular serves a vital public service. What a great article. Are there any photographs in particular that you think are worth keeping that also haven't been merged into that article? Photographs that will be orphaned by this? --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if all of the information is there *I haven't checked). For instance, one of the claims of fake photos is that the reticules aren't centered on the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. It counters that by showing the original, unedited photo. Those photos are both in the other article, but I don't know if all of the claims, etc, are in there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals. That effectively ends us up where a selective merge would have, which is what has happened here for all practical purposes. In any case, as a long-standing article the final state should not be a redlink. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Originally this article served to contain arguments from moon hoax proponents that were getting out of control. But it looks like the main article is containing the content well. If someone can make sure that the article doesn't contain anything that is missing from Moon landing conspiracy theories then a redirect ought to be fine. Algr (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Relevant content has already been merged and I suspect the title of this article is searchable on pageviews because it appears in a 'parent' article. Mramoeba (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – The article still contains a wider range of interesting material than what was merged so far. On first reading, it does not sound like giving much credence to fringe theories, rather it provides a sound rebuttal of every claim. Future editors could mine the history of this article to improve the main conspiracy page, any time claims are re-introduced there. Finally, article history by itself can be viewed as a historical perspective about the evolution of Moon landing conspiracy theories, their defense, rebuttal, and public perception. For the sake of historians, this is worth preserving in the Wikipedian record. — JFG talk 11:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I get the feeling that most users who voted "Delete" would also be comfortable with a Redirect. Is that the case? This would also allow us to slowly ensure that all relevant content from this article is indeed used on the main one, and wouldn't directly orphan any left behind images right away. To me, it sounds like a great compromise.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support a redirect. I voted delete for a reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unfortunately we need to have articles on conspiracy theories (a variety of fake news), but one per theory is ample. We therefore do not need this. No objection to a merger or redirect, but we need to avoid overnburdening the target with excess detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 9 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 deleted by RHaworth as WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) IntoThinAir (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiyaq Games[edit]

Istiyaq Games (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 game developer which fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; a quick WP:BEFORE check turns up no WP:RS sources, or really any sort of coverage. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:21, 4 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 deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IA Studios[edit]

IA Studios (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:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; a before search turns up no quality results that would pass muster as WP:RS, and even other forms of coverage are minimal. Noting also that this company (founded in 2018, so a WP:TOOSOON issue) has not developed any games; they merely bought out a studio that had developed 2 non-notable games. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:12, 4 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) Szzuk (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The War in Space[edit]

The War in Space (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 citations does not appear notable Random Redshirt (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely notable per Google Books search results seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are sources in the corresponding articles in jawiki and dewiki in addition to those found in a trivial Google Books search. WP:N says "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the references in the Japanese Wikipedia version and book reliable sources, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with the above.FelixFLB (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my Google Books search and the Japanese Wikipedia sources I found. JC7V-talk 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sandstein 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne M. Bowen[edit]

Shayne M. Bowen (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 subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Assorted WP:BEFORE searches are not providing required significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to qualify an article. No significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. Coverage found consists of:

  • Fleeting passing mentions (not WP:SIGCOV)
  • Name checks (not WP:SIGCOV)
  • Quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature, and do not establish notability)

Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America1000 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology with Squidward[edit]

Astrology with Squidward (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bumper (broadcasting)#Bumpers on children's television is tagged with {{Expand section}} and mentions Nickelodeon. Might be a better merge target. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Unnotable continuity which just filled thirty seconds a commercial did. The Nick bumper mention above should be about solely their 'you're watching' promos of the 80s and 90s, not no-effort redubs of short scenes of cartoons with unrelated content like this was. Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And after some surgical cuts to the article (including a fake 'episode list' and a bunch of inane unsourced trivia, along with a link to a random YouTube video)...the article is really, really thin. Nate • (chatter) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to the proposal to delete this. Noting that we're here because of the edits of FireChamp, whose only two edits were to this article. wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please don't denigrate a new editor who likely thought this might have some notability outside the SB community. I have absolutely no issue with them, just that the topic can't be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references in the article. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS. Lots of blogs, wikis, and other WP:UGC, but nothing we can use. I was amused (but not particularly surprised) to discover that there's several wikis devoted entirely to Sponge Bob. Spongepedia??? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

APPSeCONNECT[edit]

APPSeCONNECT (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)

Press releases and routine awards do not amount to notability per WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (or Incubate): Too much focus on the corporation rather than the product and the hype may be clouding anything good and I'm not sure fixable, may be WP:TOOSOON. Might be tempted to change my mind if more in depth about how APPSeCONNECT works rather than connecting a load of high level buzzwords together. Possibly no obvious vulnerability handling which may be a concern but not a concern from an article viewpoint. No obvious 100% independent review found, perhaps Business Software is one of the nearest but I have qualms about verification and independence of reviews. The Nascomm award is possibly borderline notable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Djm-leighpark I am sorry for the late reply. I have founded and added new information about APPSeCONNECT with reliable sources. I also checked out Business Software. Please let me know if any other changes are required. If i get more infoirmation i will add it to this!Anmolgupta.95 (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment If all else fails I suggesting responding to the COI notices on your talk page. I also have placed a COI editnotice notice on the article edit page as I believe I have reasonable cause for so doing. Simply ignoring those is not helpful in my opinion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:49, 8 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. Even after discounting the COI and likely canvassed accounts, there's no consensus to delete. Sandstein 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice (newspaper)[edit]

The Justice (newspaper) (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY. I did propose a redirect to Brandeis University#Publications but this was reverted. Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep indeed I reverted your redirect which points at a few words on the university page, which is too long a page to permit any real discussion of an editorially independant publication. No evidence presented here or elsewhere that a student newspaper published since 1949 is not notable. We even have categories for student newspapers so they are not inherently non notable. As a very experiemced AfC reviewer I accepted this page from Draft. I have a very good track record of decerning what is and is not a notable topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ummm ... then you found significant coverage in independent reliable sources of this campus paper? Spiffy. Where are those sources? Because every single citation in the article is either to the paper itself or to Brandeis publications. That being said, of course student newspapers aren't inherently non notable, but neither are they inherently notable, whether first published in 1949 or 1649. Obvious failure of the GNG is obvious. (By the bye, User:Boleyn, with a quarter million edits over a decade's time, is not what I'd call inexperienced at gauging notability herself.) Ravenswing 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the nom, but I know as a prolific AfC reviewer I've become pretty good at assessing pages. Thanks for the link to arguements to avoid - which apply exactly to the waive of the "not notable" wand without any basis that this nomination is comprised of. The paper itself is a reliable source and I believe darn near every editorially controlled print publication is inheriently notable. We are not talking about a fence post here but a newspaper. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... no. You must know that under no circumstances can any entity be a reliable source to bolster its own notability: the very definition requires an "independent" source, so no Brandeis-connected source can count. As to whether every editorially controlled print publication is inherently notable, would you mind linking the guideline saying so? Ravenswing 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Justice has been cited by other news organizations such as the New York Times, an example of which is linked, which is explicitly in the article. The institution of journalism builds upon itself, and The Justice is a notable part of University culture. Hence, although Brandeis is a small school that is relatively new with a limited history, broadening our readership is a goal of ours, and we the paper continues to expand. A limited amount of resources does not make the paper notable. If the NYT did not deem the paper worthy of citation or reliable they never would have sited it. jengeller9, 19:58, 4 November 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengeller9 (talk • contribs)  ; edited by jengeller9 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I am the individual who created this article entry. As a student newspaper for Brandeis University, the first one created at the school at that, we are the paper makes a notable aspect of the University that publishes weekly. Our The work is read throughout the University and the world and reaches a broad audience on our the website. The Brandeis Hoot, the other newspaper of Brandeis University, has its own page and on this campus, but we are the Justice is a separate entity. The two newspapers are not affiliated. We were The Justice established in 1949, almost 60 years before the Brandeis Hoot. If there are improvements that can be made to the article itself, I would be more than happy to address those. jengeller9, 13:24, 4 November 2018; edited by jengeller9 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
On that note, why do other student publications have pages and this one cannot? What makes this one less notable than any other student newspapers? jengeller9, 4 November 2018
It's entirely possible that a bunch of those aren't notable either, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. --tronvillain (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I found two other references (Marcuse letter and Brandeis newspaper delays publication), and have added the latter to the article, but still do not think this is enough to meet notability. Tacyarg (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I am failing to understand is that despite proving that the Justice is an entity that is independent of another organization AND that this is a student-run newspaper — of which many exist in Massachusetts and around the country — it is not notable. The University sites the newspaper, large media corporations have sited the paper (an example of such has been linked several times), and readership is worldwide. What am I missing that makes this organization not notable? jengeller9, 15:36 4 November 2018
Hi jengeller9. For me, it's the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. When I searched for your newspaper, I could not find other media discussing it in any detail - there were a couple of passing mentions and the Boston Globe article I have added. So, for instance, the article mentions the paper's role in publicising the university's financial ties to South Africa. If a reference was cited where an independent, published source had described the paper's activism and the effect on the university, that would be coverage which could count towards notability. Does that help? Tacyarg (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many other student papers just in Mass have been found notable. I don't understand the hate against this paper. Most of its existence is preinternet which makes finding sources harder. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three distinct articles the Justice has been mentioned in. Two are by the New York Times and the third is by American Thinker. One New York Times and the American Thinker article are cited in the Wikipedia article. 1) Brandeis Roiled by Holocaust Ad, 2) Brandeis Cancels Plan to Give Honorary Degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Critic of Islam, 3) The Brandeis University Debacle. These are not Brandeis and cite the Justice in articles about Brandeis. I will insert the last article by the NYT into the Wikipedia page. jengeller9, 19:23, 4 November 2018
Incidental mentions aren't "extensive coverage" and those last two links are definitely incidental mentions, though they might count as being cited by a reliable sources. The first NYT article would seem to count towards extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep: Seems to have been cited relatively often by reliable sources, plus some mentions as a subject. So, the relevant notability criteria are at WP:NMEDIA, right? Specifically, WP:STUDENTMEDIA, which says Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet. A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves. Just want to be clear here. --tronvillain (talk); edited 23:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was certainly coverage of an incident involving The Justice in 1993, see e.g. [17], though that incident does not appear to be described in this article. Bakazaka (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As User:tronvillain said based upon their criteria, the Justice is therefore allowed to serve primarily the Brandeis community and still remain notable. However, other notable news sources have referenced The Justice. jengeller9, 19:47, 4 November 2018
1) In an AfD discussion you only !vote once, meaning the bolded keep or delete or whatever should only be bolded in one of your comments, to help the closing admin evaluate the discussion. 2) It looks like you're signing your comments with copy/paste or manually, but a much easier and automatic way is just to type four tildes in a row at the end of your comment, which will insert your username, link to talk page, and the date without any further effort. Bakazaka (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; this is my first wikipedia article and so my first time dealing with voting-based pages. I appreciate your help!!! jengeller9, 20:18, 5 November 2018
Yes, simply being a student paper doesn't make it inherently non-notable, but it would be presumed to be notable if it meets at least one of 1. have produced award winning work 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources 5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. Thus far, I'm not sure any of those are met - a couple of references to the paper doesn't establish "frequently cited by other reliable sources."
following the green cited criteria " 2. have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history" is met. Paper has been continously published since 1949 right? That seems to be a significant history of almost 70 years. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply existing for a long period of time does not establish "significant history." It establishes history, not that the history is significant, or the criteria would simply be "has been published for x number of years." --tronvillain (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Significant history = being published for a long time. That is plain English. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply being published for a long time does not establish notability. The history itself needs to be of significance. --tronvillain (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is twisting the simple english meaning. How in the world do you decIde what is Signifocant history vs insignificant history and to whom? I have no relationship to the school amd could care less about it, but the history of my own school is significant to me and those connected to the school. Therefore the intent behind "significant" must be a reference to time, or in other words not a blog started last month or a two issue paper that quickly folded and everyone forgot. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "significant history" was intended to mean "being published for a long time", they could have simply said that, or "long history", or (as I said before) "has been published for x number of years." And clearly, significance of history would be established by coverage of that history in independent reliable sources, just as are other aspects of notability are - personal significance to those attending or related to the school is irrelevant without that. --tronvillain (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, some listed in the article, some listed in this discussion, and some available in newspaper archives. I have added a talk page section and article section template to get more attention to the close paraphrasing of sources, since that is a potential copyvio concern, but that is likely an editing issue that does not rise to a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wonder if a CoI tag and discussion on user page would also be useful? Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that jenguller9 describes the work of the paper as "our work", they might definitely want to consider WP:DISCLOSE. --tronvillain (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several other sources referencing The Justice were just added into the article. Jengeller9 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see sources, but it would definitely be helpful to readers (and be much more consistent with Wikipedia article format and style) to turn the Justice-specific content of those sources into prose, then cite the sources as references. It might seem like adding more and more citations would be helpful, but Wikipedia editors have seen a lot of people doing this to promote or otherwise overstate the importance of an article subject, so it can come across as promotional rather than encyclopedic. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
talk was your removal of the links a formatting concern? What was the rationale behind that? Jengeller9 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While potentially evidence supporting "frequently cited by other reliable sources", I moved the list to the talk page for reference because it's a completely unsuitable list for an article. It might be possible to incorporate some of it into the article, like the controversy about their coverage of the sexual assault awareness event. --tronvillain (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ravenswing's objections seem to have been addressed by subsequent edits. Regarding each of the criteria for notability- 1. have produced award winning work- Ditkowski's award for the article on doctoral program funding cuts, noted on the page under "Digital era", is one such instance. 2.have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history- The website for Brandeis's official history frequently relies on articles published by the subject dating back to the school's founding, indicating "historic purpose". The subject's "significance" is to the school community through the content it publishes and distributes weekly; this should be sufficient for a campus publication. 3. are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area- I'm assuming "Subject area" refers here to Brandeis students and the school's administration. Citations on this page indicate that reputable news outlets do treat the subject as an "authoritative" source on news developments regarding Brandeis affairs. 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources- "Frequently" is obviously relative, but for the subset of issues about which Brandeis has received attention from reliable media outlets (ie. the retraction of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's honorary degree in 2014), the subject's articles are frequently cited.5. are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets.- The subject has been the student newspaper since 1949, essentially since Brandeis's founding, and its printing and circulation around campus is presumably funded by the school. That seems to demonstrate continued significance to Brandeis University- clearly a "non-trivial niche market." The Misunderestimated Decider (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading this article, (User talk:The Misunderestimated Decider) brings up some very valuable points. This article has been sufficiently edited to fully comply with all five of the criteria of what makes an article notable if it is a student newspaper, and only one point is necessary. The Justice has a significant history and it appears from the edits that it is perfectly notable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Repeating (User talk:The Misunderestimated Decider) would be a waste of time, but I second all of their points. Wikihelper3921 (talk) 22:43, 8 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 delete. Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Du Toit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Isaac Du Toit (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 meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Author of article tries to avid due process by getting the first AfD closed after a G7 speedy deletion, only to recreate the article immediately. Author tries to derail second AfD by removing it from the article. Let's not waste more time on this and just do the inevitable (also Delete on merits, see the first AfD for my vote there which stands). Fram (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to shenanigans by article creator at previous AfD. Article is WP:PROMO for a contemporary writer for whom no sources found on a GNews search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of former employees of McKinsey & Company[edit]

List of former employees of McKinsey & Company (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:NLIST this is WP:LISTCRUFT and potentially excessively long as there are 27k employees worldwide Dom from Paris (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. If we go ahead to delete this list article, the same should also apply to the category: Category:McKinsey & Company people. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isnt a company directory. That is absurd. That would be like saying the Notbale alumni page of Harvard University is a former student directory. I think you forget just how rare it is to be the CEO of fortune 500 company and how noteworthy it is that McKinsey has produced so many. In the view of many people, the single most interesting thing about McKinsey is the fact that it has produced by far the highest number of CEOs per capita of any firm. If you delete this page you should also delete the Notable former employees of Goldman Sachs and the category page for Boston Consulting Group. Sorry im new to this so I am sure i havnt got the right protocal but this is really absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Delete Admittedly the suitability of such lists is a matter of opinion - editors can disagree in good faith about what is "encyclopedic" or not with some leeway in-between. But I agree with other editors that this list is not of encyclopedic value (per WP:SALAT and WP:NOT). People, even high-ranking businesspeople, change their employers all the time. The alleged correlation between "being a former McKinsey consultant" and "getting a nice position later" is unclear and exaggerated (and already briefly mentioned in the main article anyway). I'll also note, that one of the main sources for the list topic's alleged significance is not a "study", but a reader editor's pseudo-scientific news article in USA Today based on primary data with a simplified one-dimensional interpretation of the results. Such popular articles are fun to read, but don't automatically establish a relevant encyclopedic topic. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion about related categories yet. Categories serve a different purpose, follow different rules and should be discussed in a different venue (at WP:CfD) - AfD is the wrong forum for such suggestions. Let's keep the discussion focussed on this specific list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as an index of notable people by connection to a notable company, and per WP:SPLIT as an encyclopedic subsection of a parent article on the notable company too large to be contained therein. This is just a list of notable people who worked for a notable company, which is compliant with NOTDIR as a standard, consensus-supported method of indexing articles (see extensive contents of Category:People by company). The nominator's rationale seems to rest entirely upon the incorrect assumption that this would (or should) eventually contain everyone whoever worked for the company, when it is actually standard practice to limit such lists only to those individuals with articles, just as we would with a list of people from a town, alumni of a school, etc.

    The parent article, McKinsey & Company, at present contains no list of notable employees, instead only pointing to the list's corresponding category, so we would at most merge this list there rather than deleting it outright, and with 158 articles in Category:McKinsey & Company people there are undoubtedly enough to merit a standalone list as a split from the parent. Whether each particular individual's connection is substantive enough to merit inclusion in the list or the category is a matter for ordinary editing, and the list can also annotate just what the relationship is. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:LISTN - former employees of McKinsey have not been discussed as a group, they're discussed as individuals. Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would LISTN be relevant here? postdlf (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't follow? Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why should we care whether this particular list satisfies LISTN, instead of another analysis? postdlf (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can see your position now, your comment was well considered and I came along with a blunt delete, I didn't read your comment or any of the others before my vote. It appears you have greatly influenced the user below however. Szzuk (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "former employees of McKinsey & Company" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. Stein, Wendy J. (2006) [1994]. "McKinsey & Company, Inc.". In Kepos, Paula; Derdak, Thomas (eds.). International Directory of Company Histories, Volume 9. Chicago: St. James Press. p. 344. ISBN 978-1-55862-324-8. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      More citation information from Google Books.

      The book notes:

      Although top graduates from the top business schools may not have considered consulting the answer to their dreams, few candidates for jobs at McKinsey ever turned down a job there. For decades it has been an effective stepping stone to management positions in the country's largest corporations. Squads of former McKinsey consultants hold top positions at PepsiCo and American Express. Former McKinsey consultants included Michael L. Ainslie, CEO and president of Sotheby's Holdings, Paul W. Chellgren, president and chief operating officer of Ashland Oil, William B. Ellis, chairman and CEO of Northeast Utilities, Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., chairman and CEO of IBM, Harvey Golub, chairman and CEO of American Express, Michael H. Jordan, chairman and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Corp., C. Robert Kidder, chairman and CEO of Duracell International, Jim P. Manzi, chairman and CEO of Lotus Development, and Robert D. Haas, chairman and CEO of Levi Strauss. Other McKinsey alumni held top positions at General Electric, PepsiCo, Merrill Lynch, and Raychem. The ranks of McKinsey alumni have formed a powerful network of top executives around the world. They call on other McKinsey alumni when they are hiring or when they need information, and they call on McKinsey when they need the services of a consulting firm.

    2. McDonald, Duff (2013). The Firm. London: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-78074-392-9. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The book notes:

      A big part of McKinsey’s influence in the financial sector was due to its alumni network. In 1996 the firm had well-placed alumni in the management suites of SBC Warburg (George Feiger), Lehman Brothers (John Cecil), HSBC Capital (Steven Green), Swiss Re (Lukas Muhlemann), UBS (Peter Wuffli), Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (Phil Purcell), and Goldman Sachs (Larry Linden).15 Hamid Biglari left McKinsey in 2001 to join Citicorp. Jay Mandelbaum, until 2012 one of Jamie Dimon’s closest advisers at JPMorgan Chase, is an alumnus. Not all of them have had successful runs—Purcell’s Morgan Stanley tenure ended in his being deposed in a coup, Muhlemann’s post-McKinsey career was a decidedly mixed bag. But that didn’t stop boards of directors from going back to the McKinsey talent well again and again.

      The firm infiltrated private equity as well. Don Gogel left McKinsey to become CEO of private equity powerhouse Clayton Dubilier. Chuck Ames, also formerly of McKinsey, worked alongside him. Ex-McKinseyite Sir Ronald Cohen was an early player at Apax Partners, one of England’s largest private equity shops.

      ...

      McKinsey wasn’t just in finance, though; it was everywhere. By the late 1990s the CEOs of America West Airlines, American Express, Delta, Dun & Bradstreet, IBM, Levi Strauss, Morgan Stanley, Polaroid, and USG were former McKinseyites.16 In 1999 Fortune ran a story titled “CEO Super Bowl.” The story suggested that just as the University of North Carolina “manufactures” basketball stars, and the University of Michigan “cranks out” football stars, so too was there a CEO factory in the country—McKinsey. The network is without a doubt the most powerful the world has ever seen. “You don’t realize it until you’re gone,” IBM chief Lou Gerstner later told another McKinsey partner.

    3. Hayes, Thomas C. (1979-08-19). "McKinsey & Co., Problem Solvers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The article notes:

      The following are some of McKinsey's alumni:

      James C. Abegglen, vice president, the Boston Consulting Group.

      B. Charles Ames, president and chief executive officer, Reliance Electric Company.

      Charles J. Aschauer Jr., executive vice president, Abbott Laboratories.

      Kenneth S. Axelson, senior vice president, J.C. Penney & Company.

      Jay Berry, president and chief executive officer, Airwick Industries.

      Arthur E. Biggs, executive vice president, the Mobil Chemical Company.

      J.J. Cardwell, president, Consolidated Foods Corporation.

      Hal N. Carr, chairman of the board, Republic Airlines.

      Robert R. Champion, vice president, Itel Corporation.

      Ned P. Dewitt 2d, president, Six Flags Inc.

      [The article lists 21 other people.]

    4. McDonald, Duff (2013-09-10). "The CEO Factory: Ex-McKinsey Consultants Get Hired to Run the Biggest Companies". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The author of this article also wrote the book The Firm mentioned above.

      The article notes:

      Last week brought more news of high-level appointments. On Sept. 6, French satellite provider Eutelsat Communications appointed former McKinseyite Jean-Hubert Lenotte as the group’s director of strategy. On Sept. 3, Avon Products appointed long-time McKinsey consultant Brian Salsberg as SVP of global strategy. That was less than a month after it appointed one of McKinsey’s highest-profile female consultants, senior partner Nancy Killefer, to its board. And on Sept. 2, Serbian lawmakers appointed Lazar Krstic, a 29-year-old former McKinsey consultant, as finance minister.

      They don’t only make news with their appointments, either. They make it with their actions. The man calling the shots on the Vodafone side of that $130 billion deal with Verizon a few weeks back? That would be CEO Vittorio Colao, also ex-McKinsey. While McKinsey is a hard place to hang onto a job—only one in six new hires stays with the firm more than five years—it does offer an incomparably bouncy springboard into plum corporate roles for those who leave of their own volition or otherwise.

      ...

      It doesn’t only happen on the individual level. Consider Enron, which had McKinsey written all over it. Enron CEO-turned-convict Jeff Skilling was ex-McKinsey. Between May 2000 and December 2001, while he was driving Enron into the ground, Skilling had more than 20 meetings with two of his old buddies from McKinsey, partners Ron Hulme and Suzanne Nimocks. Then it all exploded in a violent crash. McKinsey competitor Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, went out of business as a result, but despite the fact that McKinsey was pulling in more than $10 million a year from Enron at its peak, the firm wasn’t named as a civil or criminal defendant, nor were any of its consultants asked to testify at congressional hearings.

    5. Hill, Andrew (2011-11-25). "Inside McKinsey". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The article notes:

      The McKinsey roll of honour is long. Lou Gerstner, chairman of Carlyle Group and former head of IBM, and James Gorman, boss of Morgan Stanley, are both alumni. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, worked at McKinsey. So did the CEOs of BHP Billiton, Amgen, Boeing and Vodafone. Britain’s foreign secretary William Hague, and its chief financial regulator Lord Turner, used to be McKinsey insiders. Italy’s new economic “superminister” Corrado Passera worked at the Firm.

      The powerful alumni network is in part the fruit of McKinsey’s policy of “up or out” – perhaps the best example in global business of a mutually beneficial rolling redundancy programme. Every two or three years, McKinsey determines whether its consultants will make progress to the next level in the Firm. If not, it gently pushes them out. The internal talent pool is further distilled and the Firm extends its web of potential contacts and customers. As a result, McKinsey alumni are famously loyal. Even those who spoke on background for this article – and had left the partnership years earlier – occasionally slipped back into the first person plural when talking about the Firm.

    6. Colvin, Geoffrey (1999-08-02). "CEO Super Bowl Which make better managers? Elitists from McKinsey or bruisers from GE?". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The article notes:

      Note that the result could have changed if we had chosen different CEOs, which we easily might have, especially for Team McKinsey. Candidates: William Foote (USG), Richard Goodmanson (America West Airlines), Volney Taylor (Dun & Bradstreet), and Gregory Summe (EG&G), among many others. We chose the CEOs we did because they run the best-known companies.

    7. Kihn, Martin (2005). House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time. New York: Warner Business Books. ISBN 978-0-446-56246-1. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The book notes:

      People do not understand how hardwired McKinsey is into the power grid of business, nor how annexed it is to the Harvard Business School. ...

      No—by now they own, run, or manage the entire world.

      The book says McKinsey alumni include: Chicago Board of Trade's chairman, Gillette's board chair, Levi's chairman, a Google co-leader, CNBC's co-leader Pamela Thomas-Graham, and the CEO of Martha Stewart's company.
    8. Rasiel, Ethan (1999). The McKinsey Way. Blacklick, Ohio: McGraw Hill Professional. pp. xi–xii. doi:10.1036/0071368833. ISBN 0-07-136883-3. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The book notes:

      Several senior McKinsey partners have risen to international prominence in their own right. Lowell Bryan advised the Senate Banking Committee during the savings and loan crisis. Kenichi Ohmae (who recently left the Firm) writes books on management and futurology that are best sellers in Japan. Herb Henzler advised former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on business and economic matters. Even more visible are some of McKinsey’s “alumni,” who have gone on to senior positions around the world: Tom Peters, management guru and coauthor of In Search of Excellence; Harvey Golub, president of American Express; and Adair Turner, president of the Confederation of British Industries, to name but three.

    9. Huey, John; Davis, Joyce E.; Furth, Jane (1993-11-01). "How McKinsey Does It: The world's most powerful consulting firm commands unrivaled respect -- and prices -- but is being buffeted by a host of new challenges. Here's the inside story". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The article notes:

      But lately it has found itself in an unwelcome spotlight, mostly because of the celebrity of such firm alumni as Lou Gerstner, Harvey Golub, and Michael Jordan, former consultants who have assumed hot-seat CEO posts at IBM, American Express, and Westinghouse. TCI boss John Malone, the so-called King of Cable, is also a former McKinsey consultant. Throughout this recent flood of press attention, The Firm has said nothing.

    10. Dunham, Kemba J. (2013-03-07). "Low-Key Aide Will Lead McKinsey's Consultants". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-11-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03.

      The article notes:

      Mr. Davis is ascending to the top of an organization widely regarded as a training ground for CEOs. It counts among its alumni Louis V. Gerstner Jr., the former IBM chairman and chief executive; Morgan Stanley Chairman and CEO Philip Purcell and U.S. Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson Jr.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTDIR does not apply because this is list of notable former employees of McKinsey & Company and per postdlf is a "consensus-supported method of indexing articles" per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN.

    Cunard (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard's findings that this would meet WP:LISTN. As long as the criteria is limited to notable former employees and clearly laid out (either on the page or in the title), there is no issues with indiscriminateness.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is closer to a "list of notable alumni" for a university than it is a company directory. Restricting to blue-linked individuals is enough to keep the page from becoming an indiscriminate heap. WP:NOTDIR inapplicable; passes WP:LISTN. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs references to show that the subject of former McKinsey employees per se is actually notable, rather than individual former employees, or passing references in articles that important people used to work there. Can you imagine, say, a list of former teachers? Former Marines? I think people are being swayed by the above references, but examining each in turn none of them is actually about the subject of former McKinsey employees, instead they are about McKinsey. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems, in the present context, fine: the general theme of the references is that one big part of McKinsey's significance in the world is its roster of "graduates". In order to document the company in a way that reflects the content of the sources, we need to talk about that, and a spin-off list of individuals who are wiki-notable for other reasons is a sensible way to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This aspect of the company is already covered in several sub-sections of "Organization" in McKinsey & Company, where both the praise and criticism for this alleged approach can be presented a lot better in sufficient detail and nuance. An additional simplifying employee list, especially with the mentioned sourcing and criteria problems, adds nothing new in that regard. GermanJoe (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was a good nomination but Cunard's list of references is convincing that we can treat the article as something better than list cruft. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ill add one more source from Forbes in 2016: Why McKinsey & Company's Alumni Network is crucial to its success. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2016/07/05/why-mckinsey-companys-alumni-network-is-crucial-to-its-success/#7120d6e71580 It also seems very similar to the List of former employees of Goldman Sachs which is a ligitimate page. Johnstonphil (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2018 (EST) — Note to closing admin: Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NickiHndrxx Tour[edit]

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

The article was recreated after a "delete" consensus was reached on the previous AfD. The issues raised at that time still remain. The article currently fails WP:NTOUR and is WP:TOOSOON. See AfDs for Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera) and Meaning of Life Tour as they are similar cases. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah but "NickiHnrxx" is 81.818 percent on the wp:CONSONANT socre, so probably should be kept. --Doncram (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly does have a lot of consonants lol, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: There are enough differences between the two articles that I think a G4 speedy delete would be a stretch. The most significant point of difference is that the new version has substantially more references. However, most of those references still predate the last AfD and deletion and the main rational for deletion was TOOSOON. I will leave it to the community to determine if the cited references are of sufficient quality and depth to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aoba47's explanation. Its announcement is already included on the album's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multinational[edit]

Miss Multinational (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)

An unremarkable organised event; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Aayat1998 with few other contributions outside this topic. Promotionalism only on a nn pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find sources and add to the article. This ought to meet at least WP:GNG Or are we under a mandate to delete all beauty pageants? Sources talk about the establishment of the pageant, the 24 year old entrepreneur, the first pageant, its winner and runners up, and the future contestants for the second edition of the pageant in a little over a month. What more do you expect to find for a pageant anticipating its second year? Asia Times, CNN Philippines, The Indian Express, ABS-CBN not reliable sources? Trackinfo (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - various promotional references and reports do not count per WP:NORG (yes, pageant is a business, not an event). Pageants are lucrative business they crop up every year, with pompous names. One needs serious independent sources with in-depth description. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, the article is enough stable to stand as a lone article/encyclopedic. Meets WP:GNG. Strong reliable sources present. See Miss Multinational. --الصبي الهندي (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These "reliable sources" are not "strong". Please read WP:NORG: routine coverage, such as press releases and reports do not count towards notability of businesses. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not even one solid credible source for the article. If it was popular, it should have been covered by a major daily of the city at least. The winner, however they allege, is from Phillipines which kind of makes it international. Maybe it will become big in coming years and then can have a page. Move to drafts otherwise? Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With 49 wikipedia edits, do you even know about sources, on a global basis? Asia Times is a major source from a small town of Hong Kong, Indian Express is from a tiny place called Mumbai, and of course the Philippines is excited with the winner, ABS-CBN, CNN Philippines, the Philippine Star are major media for the tiny country. That was sarcasm. That is 5 major news organizations covering the pageant and winner. By the way, covering three different countries in a small, unimportant continent like Asia. Even your phraseology, using "allege" is a Trumpian dismissive like the "failing New York Times." Trackinfo (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This "tiny place called Mumbai" is known for its "international business schools" pushing fake diplomas in every major Indian newspaper, the "paid news" phenomenon well-known in India and southEast Asia. There is a reason we need independent sources to verify business. Press releases and reports from an event do not count. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you discredit essentially ALL sources emanating from India with your statement. This is an 87 year old daily newspaper with multiple publications in the major cities of India. I can't vouch for anything out of India, they do tend toward fraud in their business dealings, but a major daily is as best we can hope for an unbiased source in that country. That said, the reports also come from major sources in other, hopefully less corrupted places. And if we start wholesale discrediting the press, Mr. Trump, we may as well trash all sources leading to wikipedia and the concept of wikipedia itself.Trackinfo (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I cast doubt on newspapers which publish advertorials, meaning sources cited in this newspapers require extra scrutiny. The articles cited in the discussed article do not qualify as significant independent non-routine coverage. And yes, we at Wikipedia have already started wholesale discrediting some press. Sadly, the amount of bullshit in press skyrocketed with the advent of the Internet. Why is that? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as per Staszek Lem.-Richie Campbell (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weighing the press coverage through Google News (per WP:NEXIST) and in the article, I reached the conclusion that there is sufficient coverage and notability to keep this one central article on this pageant. In other words, while I consider the topic to be notable I further wish to make the observation that it is not important enough for national and annual articles. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking through double !vote. I assume that user only wanted to share that he agrees with my opinion, which is appreciated. gidonb (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hridi Haq[edit]

Hridi Haq (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? Didn't pass WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember seeing her on television on more than a few occasions and would think she is notable. However, I could not find much source to establish her notability either. --nafSadh did say 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is well know actress. Not only television drama she also involve with theater for a long time. As an actress-TV director-scriptwriter she has been involved with Nagorik Nattayangan (a renown theater group) for long. But the article is too small, its may need added information. Niloy (keep talking) 10:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you come up with some reliable sources on her? I couldn't find much. --nafSadh did say 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a WP:BARE at it's finest.....ugh. On the basis of WP:GNG this passes even if barely, she does fail WP:NACTOR considering I fail to see which roles of her's are significantly notable, but the two are not connected so a subject can fail one but pass the second. Yes, this article is in a bad weak stub shape which fails to describe her notability with not even listing her roles on TV and theatre, but as Wikipedia encourages work in progress, then so be it. Keep and hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject, someday, will improve it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutts[edit]

The Mutts (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)

10 year old unreferenced puff-piece, orphaned, so many other tags to add, this makes more sense Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure how much of the current article could be sourced. There are sources out there that would permit a brief article ([18], [19], [20], [21]), and there may be more offline given the time the band were at their peak, but WP:TNT perhaps applies here. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah TNT applies, and notability is dubiously marginal anyway. Delete. SpinningSpark 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've reverted back to an earlier revision of the article, before large amounts of unsourced puffery was added. Please can you comment on this version?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the in-depth sources indicating notability? The article now has two sources. The first one is barely more than a passing mention – way short of in-depth. The second is a broken link, and in any case described as a press release. Press releases are not considered evidence of notability. SpinningSpark 14:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was aboud the American band when the AFD was started but is now about the British band again. Revisions should be moved so there is an article about each band - last time I mentioned this I was told it could not be done but it doesn't look too difficult as there are few revisions and it was complete replacement rather than a change through a series of edits. Peter James (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Café[edit]

Tango Café (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)

Short-lived, non-notable local business. Orange Mike | Talk 05:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 05:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 05:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 05:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 05:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a little family-owned coffee shop that closed after nine years. Most of the eight sources are from local papers during a six-month period in 2008 regarding the shop's apparent impending closure after five years in business. Aside from the the person who created the article in 2013 (about a year after the business finally shut down), it really only has one meaningful content edit, with an interesting edit summary that makes a pretty good case for why the article should've been deleted a long time ago. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Corp; sourcing in article and online don't show that it's notable enough for inclusion. JC7V-talk 06:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local business that doesn't have the coverage to pass WP:GNG, and never will as it's now defunct. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the business received significant coverage from a variety of publications and journalists in a large city during it's existence, evidencing its importance. True, it is unlikely to be expanded further because the business has closed, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was, at one time, notable. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles has sources from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune, which are local newspapers, and a couple from The Jewish Chronicle. This isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite clearly it's significant independent reliable coverage, the one moot question is whether it's too 'local' for WP:NCORP. My opinion is that it is broad enough. Sionk (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302, you wikilinked to the wrong Jewish Chronicle. It should be The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh, not the unrelated Jewish Chronicle in London, England. So, yes, all the sources for this coffee shop are local publications. And, Sionk, as WP:NCORP explains, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". It also notes examples of trivial coverage, which includes "the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops", which (its expected closing) is precisely what 7 of the 8 sources are about. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think it is very notable, though it was on local newspaper several times. Especially that the business closed in 2012 and that it was only open for 9 years, there's not much you can add to it. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Twilight (series)[edit]

Edge of Twilight (series) (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)

Unnecessary "... (series)" article. Edge of Twilight (video game), while notable, remains unreleased, with two mobile releases without articles. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator's own words: There are three games, so there is a series. Whether all games have articles is irrelevant. In fact, those not having articles means a series article is useful to have some place to include that information which would be misplaced at Edge of Twilight (video game) and lost if the series article was deleted (thus violating WP:PRESERVE). Regards SoWhy 10:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are two released mobile titles, which haven't met stand-alone notability apparently. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, there are some sources, but nothing that would merit expanding into separate articles. Edge of Twilight was eventually released in June 2016 on Steam, to little fanfare. I'm hesitant to believe the article will see an expansion soon. Since the two mobile titles are already mentioned at Edge of Twilight (video game), why not organize into a single, encompassing article? Or, if I can make another suggestion, instead of deleting, why not merge "Edge of Twilight (video game)" into "Edge of Twilight (series)"? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the mobile games are mobile versions of Edge of Twilight (video game), which they don't appear to be, they would be misplaced in that article. And if Edge of Twilight (video game) is notable on its own, there is no reason to merge it into the series article. Per WP:CSC, stand-alone lists are acceptable for topics that do warrant independent articles but should still be included, which imho applies to the mobile games here. The question is: Why force the removal the series article which serves as an overview for three distinct games? Neither alternative you envision seems better than the status quo. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    they would be misplaced in that article Not particularly true. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the series content into the video game article per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Trucker (band)[edit]

Ghost Trucker (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)

Does not seem to meet WP:NBAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of musical databases which only report track listings. If there's no consensus to delete, Excelsior Recordings would be the proper redirect/merge target.

Also anyone Googling for sources shouldn't be confused with The Ghost Truckers (a similarly named band from Massachusetts) and "Ghost Trucker netherlands band" is the proper search. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seem to be at least a few Dutch-language reliable sources like this one, and some less-reliable looking ones like this and this. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article discussing the band in De Groene Amsterdammer. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a Dutch band (probably why I missed the Dutch sources), so I guess there aren't going to be English sources covering it. You could add those to the article and see where this discussion goes from there.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG based on articles in the influential NRC and De Groene. As IntoThinAir points out, there is more. Dewiki the album. It's the sole album of the band, well covered by the band's entree. gidonb (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. gidonb (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Citation needed (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)

Clearly no notability[citation needed]. Huge problems with sources too, much of it comes from blogs, Urban Dictionary, Know your meme and other self-published websites that anyone could edit. As a matter of fact, as far as I can see only 1 of 10 sources pertains to the issue discussed in the article (the concept itself) and is not self-published Openlydialectic (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Even only 1 of 10 sources pertains to the issue discussed in the article (the concept itself) and is not self-published, if there is at least a source which can prove notability, it is not meant to be deleted. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 10:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed to prevent its further creation in the future. If we allow this article to exist, we're going to be creating a precedent. That means, there will be lots of articles about Wikipedia's internal stuff as articles in the mainspace and they'll use this discussion as an argument to keep. Please let us not let this begin. Holy Goo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources aren't all terrible. I'm not seeing the problem with the Know Your Meme site. It is not a site where people can self-publish. It's true that users can submit a meme for consideration, but then again readers of a newspaper can submit a story. It doesn't mean it is going to get published. According to the site, they have a professional editorial staff who review submitted material and research "the online presence of the meme for confirmation or invalidation." Joshua Glenn's "Brainiac" column in the Boston Globe could perhaps be allowed as an RS under WP:SPS as a recognised expert since he has previously published on internet matters. Variety doesn't strike me as a source we should reject as non-RS (although in its case, it provides only one tiny factoid). Finally, of course Wikipedia articles can't be used as reliable sources, but page histories can certainly reliably identify the creator of the page. SpinningSpark 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Know Your Meme can never be used to establish notability. Do we need a RfC? wumbolo ^^^ 19:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Asserting that without a rationale is not very convincing. It's even less convincing that you have not answered any of my rationale for accepting it. The status of the page in question is shown as "confirmed", meaning that it has been checked by the editorial staff. SpinningSpark 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They just "confirm" it if it exists, and is appropriately described, but that doesn't give it any weight or make it significant. wumbolo ^^^ 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
Peaceray (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term exists as common sense.--Beta Lohman (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as explained by Peaceray above. --Espoo (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a very notable topic since it has a lot of usage outside of Wikipedia. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Add to the list above, The New York Times. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing the term in quality sources, and not just in passing, but in a way that suggests the concept is notable. These two: [22][23] both describe the term as "infamous", while these: [24][25][26] mention it in a sense which suggests we should all know about it. This might not be possible, due to technical limitations, but there might be a case for renaming it to have the square brackets around it, since that's how the sources are denoting it. I wouldn't delete it though, and I certainly wouldn't redirect it into Wikipedia space, that would be worse than deletion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many keep !votes are unconvincing that this deserves more than a WP:DICDEF, but some have provided plentiful coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of European Resistance[edit]

National Council of European Resistance (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only citations, no quality source; doesn't pass GNG NAH 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found only one source in a book, which I find too few for passing WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I forgot it, apologies. But it's only a (very short) mention. NAH 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Another fairly prominent book mention: [27] Adelsheim (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Full disclosure: I am the author of the article. I reckon that a political organization with prominent European officials as members (such as 2 former MEPs, a current MEP, a former French MP, and the former president of an EU28 country), however minor it may appear to be, meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As for WP:SIGCOV: [28] (Gatestone Institute), [29] (Huffington Post), [30] (Magyar Idők), [31] (StreetPress), etc. And that's without even mentioning far-right sources such as Boulevard Voltaire, Polémia, and Breizh Info. Regards, Adelsheim (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     I will also note that this is Nomen ad hoc's third attempt to delete a CNRE-related article. The first two were unsuccessful (Wikidata, Wikipedia). Not that I am assuming anything—I am confident NAH is acting in good faith. Adelsheim (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adelsheim: of course, I am. I'm only concerned about notability criterias. NAH 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • There appear to be plenty of independent sources to establish notability.Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I favor the automatic inclusion of articles on all political parties, their national leaders, and their youth sections. This is the sort of articles that the public has a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia, and nitpicking sources in such a case is a classic example of what our policy of Ignore All Rules is meant to circumvent. Noteworthy neo-fascist political association. Carrite (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else want to weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adelsheim (talk) 17:32, 8 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) Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choir of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge[edit]

Choir of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (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 mention in primary sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with the time to follow up the reviews quoted in the choir's website's pages for each of their albums would find numerous sources, including The Guardian, BBC Music Magazine, The Times (one here [32]), Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Gramophone, Choir and Organ, etc. They have also issued 26 albums with "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)" - WP:MUSICBIO Criterion 5. They certainly meet WP:GNG, and WP:MUSICBIO. The article could certainly be improved (eg to include the history of the choir), but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Impressive discography, listing reputable names. AVS (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment It's clear I was a bit hasty with the nomination, seeing only self referenced sources. I would request closure as keep since WP:MUSICBIO appears to be met. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable members in choir, plus they got some coverage at Sir Stephen Hawking's funeral and the sources listed above by RebeccaGreen all make this a keep for me.JC7V-talk 19:54, 10 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. I really can't see any good policy-based arguments on either side. There's a lot of WP:OSE and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but not much beyond that. In any case, there's clearly no consensus to delete this. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after B. R. Ambedkar[edit]

List of things named after B. R. Ambedkar (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)

As per WP:NOTDIR. Godric ki Kothritalk to me 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The top level list is at Category:Lists of things named after people SpinningSpark 18:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, as similar to List of things named after Mahatma Gandhi. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list of things by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't this better covered by a disambiguation page, but only for those items that are actually notable? BTW - Editors should try to avoid "What about X?" arguments per WP:WAX, Wiki has lots of stuff on it, much of which may be faulty/hard to defend FOARP (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Epping to Chatswood rail link. Sandstein 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Station Link[edit]

Station Link (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 temporary bus routes. WP:NOTGUIDE. Gareth (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. SpinningSpark 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I have just found about this but I had previously found that the editors who started this article have since started another article on this subject Draft:Station_Link_(Temporary_Bus_Service_in_Sydney). I have tried to assist in improving this article but it is subject to the same shortcomings as this article and should also be considered for deletion in conjunction with this. This other article has already been rejected once. Fleet Lists (talk) 07:06, 7 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. The consensus is that the article meets the general notability guidelines and could be improved by anyone, paid editing or otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craft Ventures[edit]

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

Vanity paid editing piece about venture capital fundsters launching in 2017. Mundane financial pages coverage plus bloggy bits = GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia and known paid editing, articles which would never get picked on otherwise get deleted regardless if they meet notability requirements. You can't be honest about it. I would never produce content which I didn't think met basic content guidelines. Being covered to write something makes no difference whatsoever to the content. If I'm not permitted to do this work then I have no alternative but to go back to retired, I was hoping to raise something to continue running my contests.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One fundamental problem of paid editing is that one's notion of what meets notability standards becomes rather amorphous. One ends up writing about things that one ordinarily wouldn't in order to cash the check; in this case, an unmemorable, non-significantly covered in the press, venture capital company started just last year. Are the principals notable? Doubtlessly, if one digs. This entity? I do not think so, nor would you, in all likelihood, if you were able to step back and take an unbiased view of the available sourcing. Wikipedia is not here to be anyone's career or cash cow. If you can not afford to do it more than an hour or two a week, that is the world in which we live. If you do choose to engage in paid editing (and I have done it myself so I would know whereof I speak) you have absolutely got to do a better job than this filtering out the chaff from the wheat, even if that means not cashing as many checks. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article already existed. I simply improved the information we have on it using reliable sources regardless. I was just beginning to plan a big American contest, core articles etc which badly need the work. If I'm not permitted to do the occasional paid work here and to be honest with people then we lose out on thousands of articles as a result, it pales in comparison. Is it a brilliant article full of detailed coverage, no? Does it pass GNG. In my opinion, yes. It is headed by a very notable investor who used to be the COO of Paypal and has enough mentions in reliable sources to narrowly pass requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no sense, he's not the CEO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he have to be the CEO? It just has to be a valid search term, which it probably would be for all three of 'em. Incidentally, I don't personally think that if an article is paid for (and that disclosed) it should be automatically deleted. It's articles for undisclosed payments that are generally burnt. ——SerialNumber54129 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better redirect target, offer it. If you have evidence that this firm meets GNG, present it. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has 12 sources, just about meets WP:NCORP, and is currently neutrally written. The company has assets of $350 million and although it has invested some money into some kind of tokenization platform, it is not itself a startup or a crypto business. This is a relatively traditional investment company covered in the mainstream press and run by notable businesspeople from other large companies.
The issue of whether Dr. Blofeld is an evil mastermind is incidental here in this AfD about the article. Regardless disclosed paid editing is allowed and he didn't even create the article in the first place. There are genuinely masses of paid editors, perhaps a quarter of all new company articles that I approve at AfC are likely to be paid for or written by an employee, and that is after rejecting most of them as spam. The only surprise is that Dr. Blofeld doesn't appear to work for Craft Ventures or a PR company. For some reason he wants to do unpaid editing as well, which is highly unusual but you don't see me complaining about it.
I will point out that even undisclosed paid articles are not deleted for being written by a paid editor, they just happen to also be spam in most cases and eligible for G11 deletion. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's prevalent on here, and often done by inexperienced editors from PR firms who are only here to promote their client or company. If experienced, neutral editors here were paid to write business articles frankly the site would be massively better off. I have minimum standards, I've already turned down a few articles for the near future which aren't notable. If I made enough I'd invest it back into the project and come up with a business contest to clean up POV bad paid editing jobs and get regulars to write them to a good standard or help guide struggling PR editors in the drafts to write good, neutral articles. I would rather it was done in an honest, professional manner which benefits both Wikipedia and the company and I am trusted to write neutral content which meets guidelines. Craft are not looking for a gushing vanity piece, they simply wanted a better looking, more comprehensive article from an encyclopedic viewpoint, so I tried to do that with the sourcing available, nothing wrong with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If experienced, neutral editors here were paid to write business articles frankly the site would be massively better off. — On this we agree. At issue here, however, is whether this particular firm meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, Wall Street Journal does in particular, this, CNBC interviews, and related Fortune and Forbes articles, good indicators it's fine, even if nothing to rave about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing fails WP:NCORP, which is the standard here, and it is intentionally higher than the GNG (or rather, it explains what the GNG means for corporation, but in practice that is a higher standard.) All we see is routine coverage of a routine company. It doesn't matter the number of sources if they all don't pass the NCORP standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ultimately, the page shouldn't have to already be perfect, right? If it exists, why can't it just be improved upon so that it doesn't read as unbiased and highlights all sides of the company, good and bad? I stumbled upon this discussion as I was about to edit the page and seek out material that may be controversial to create more depth to the article. By deleting the page there's no opportunity to show all sides of the company. The page was created in June and the only hand on it was the creator until this month. Leave the page and give others a chance... IvyMalamute7 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on that argument, then NOTHING would ever get deleted. The article must meet some level of WP notability standard the very second the submit button is hit. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - topic is (marginally) notable, and tone is perfectly fine. In the whole of wikipedia articles like this don't add a huge amount but they don't take away anything either, and better to have reasonably referenced articles about companies than just spam. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article feels reasonably neutral, and is backed by significant sources, about a wealthy business -- that is having a significant investment impact as a Venture capital space which meets the lasting interest requirements for notability. Moreover the sources are substantial so it meets GNG. Sadads (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solongo Batsükh[edit]

Solongo Batsükh (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)

Mere contestant of a beauty pageant. Fails on WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Yet to win any major beauty pageant. Hitro talk 11:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 4 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jessup (artist)[edit]

Paul Jessup (artist) (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)

Nowhere near to WP:NARTIST. References presented in this article talks mostly about Great British Teddy Bear company or Bobby Bear. There is nothing like in-depth coverage about the subject. Clearly fails on WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Google searches do not emit anything substantial except few controversies. Apart from that, if it is to believe then the subject does not consider himself to be notable enough to have an article at Wikipedia. Looking at the history of the article it seems that a user with relatively low edit count is trying to add controversial content to the article without solid references which has been reverted multiple times. Finally, there is nothing considerable enough that can help in demonstrating notability. Hitro talk 10:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete he is frequently quoted in the press. However that coverage is usually only a sentence or two. the intentions of a promotional editor are not relevant to any deletion reason.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO as admitted by the article creator here. Without the negative content the article is very misleading and should be deleted as a deceptive advert, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the fence (please see updated below) - this looks clearly like a case of a promotional, perhaps even paid creation and then bad news hit the press and now a desire not to have a wikipedia bio anymore. Perhaps we should redirect to the teddybear company, those two multi million dollar deals with china seem worthy of reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources -- I think this view of notability is unchallenged by anyone commenting here thus far. The article subject apparently preferring the article to be deleted is not a decisive factor, but a contributory one. Wikipedia does not retain articles for the purpose of punishing living persons -- or people who might have been associated with them -- for having previously tried to use Wikipedia in a promotional manner. MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to The Great British Teddy Bear Company - off the fence now. Those china deals and the company would be a better primary target. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.JPL549 (talk) 11:53, 5 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Price[edit]

Mission: Price (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 meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 4 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. Discounting the opinion of the person who is now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzy anslem. Sandstein 18:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Goel[edit]

Ishan Goel (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'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject except this by Forbes which reads like an interview and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. That Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article describes him as a photographer but his own website does not. No sign of notability as a photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of notable sources with articles on him including these from Forbes and Business Insider. Also would you consider Inc as a notable source? I agree he has no worthy project as a photographer which I have taken out but I feel he should be included based on his works as a digital marketer. Buzzy anslem (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Buzzy anslem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
The sources do not establish notability and he has done nothing that makes him notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Forbes item is by "a contributor " not their staff, and consists of one-paragraph blurbs about 10 equally undistinguished people. The Business Insider is a one sentence quote his publicist managed to get inserted in an article about some general subject. The reason there isn't anything better is that he hasn;t done anything worth writing about ,either in the real world, or here. Which raises the question of how this article came to be written--I assume it must have been coi of some sort, but iI cannot tell whether it was his own staff or an entirely indiscriminating paid writer, A competent paid WP writer, even if undeclared, would have known better than to try to write an article on him. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find your assumptions funny. Not seeming to hold too much brief on the subject but you claim 10 young minds changing the usual narrative as undistinguished, you also said his publicist managed to insert him in a BI article - if he wasn't worthy would he have been mentioned in the first place? Here is another article on him by Inc. He was a speaker at SXSW. You also call me a fellow contributor to wikipedia as incompetent. Buzzy anslem (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Inc. piece is not acceptable for a couple of reasons. First, it's an interview which is not an independent source as required for establishing notability and most importantly it was not published by their staff member. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has coverage in multiple independent sources which are verifiable like the Forbes link. Let us not forget that it takes special achievement to be featured in Forbes. Basic requirements include; verifiable independent sources and relevant primary and secondary sources, all of which the subject in question posses. I vote for keep. Stevedure (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like you forget to read the comments above by Jake Brockman and DGG, both have said very clearly that Forbes piece is not acceptable per WP:RSP so do you have anything else to support your vote? GSS (talk|c|em) 11:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject meets the WP:BASIC requirements in WP:BIO and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". I think we can help the original editor by adding secondary sources.Stevedure (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and how it passes WP:BASIC when there is no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject? GSS (talk|c|em) 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources do not provide adequate coverage. This is a 19-year-old. To say he is an expert on anything in a meaningful way is not worth stating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 11 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. Michig (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.S[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing our notability standards for musicians and no strong reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that he's released a bunch of singles -- there's no indication of any albums, or chart success for the songs, or notable music awards, or anything else that would actually pass NMUSIC. And the sourcing is more or less garbage as well: three of the five footnotes are to non-notability-assisting streaming platforms (YouTube, Last.fm and something called MaGbedu) -- and while AllMusic is a more reliable source in theory, in this case one of those two citations is to a discography of his singles which includes no editorial content at all -- no biography of him, no reviews of the singles -- and the other just "verifies" his birthdate and literally nothing else. So those aren't notability-assisting sources in this instance, as they offer no substance. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he has to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC and quality RS coverage to support it, but neither of those conditions are met here at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am not familiar with Nigerian news sources, so I am open to changing my !vote if substantial coverage in reliable sources appears. Please ping me if something is found. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite hard to Google, but so far nothing provided has proved he meets WP:NMUSIC. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly non-notable artist. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not up to WP:NMUSIC standards. Bradv 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This artist completely fails WP:MUSICBIO. There’s no reliable or independent sources to proof the subject being notable. Is Nutin 05:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:A11, WP:G3 -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Atticus Christopher Barnard[edit]

Paul Atticus Christopher Barnard (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 verification from reliable sources, no one found in Google search by this name Peaceray (talk) 06:12, 4 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 deleted as G5 (procedural closure). (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kobby Kyei[edit]

Kobby Kyei (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 hasn't been improved since notability tag was added. Regardless, the subject is not notable. The writeup is blatant PR. The content on the page has been linked to other notable topics but that doesn't render the subject notable. The sources used are equally problematic and don't carry weight in this context. sandioosesTextMe 23:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you elaborate on how the sources are "problematic"? I don't recognize any of the news outlets, but I'm not sure that makes them unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:40, 4 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. Michig (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish solution[edit]

Spanish solution (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:V WP:N. After extensive searching, I can't find a single WP:RS which predates this article that uses the term Spanish solution. I've found a few blogs and other non-RS which use the term, but they are all newer than this article. As far as I can tell, this is an invented term, with no preexisting usage, and what sources do exist out there have just picked it up from us. I don't think there's any doubt that the concept actually exists in rail stations, but the name appears to be invented.

This was first discussed five years ago at Talk:Spanish solution#Sources. Sadly, the term now has extensive use in our own railroad articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, searches for Barcelona solution don't yield any better results. Lots of blogs, mirrors, and other non-reliable sources, but nothing that predates our usage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost immediately got a book result from 1979. It's obviously a notable concept so would be a keep even if the article title was an issue. SpinningSpark 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, your google-fu seems to be stronger than mine. What search did you run to find that? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The search term was "Spanish solution" trains in gbooks. SpinningSpark 07:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've done some more searching. I'm now convinced that the term did indeed exist prior to wikipedia (so, WP:V is no longer a valid argument), but I'm still not convinced this meets WP:N. There's not much out there. Most uses seem to be in primary sources (i.e. conference papers). Many of the uses of the term "Spanish solution" aren't even applicable to trains. For example, Therefore, the Spanish solution, autonomy for Gibraltar's government within Spain... [33], or the only viable Spanish solution to the problem of Indian control was the interpreter-scout [34]. Even in the context of trains, it doesn't always refer to the idea of opening the doors on both sides of the train: The Spanish solution of introducing the European standard on the stretch of high-speed track between Madrid and Seville, means that the peninsula will in future have two different networks [35]. And, even in sources which are in fact talking about the subject of this article, the term is used partially in quotes, In view of the anticipated low loads, the "Spanish" solution is not necessary [36], indicating the author doesn't consider this standard or accepted usage. On the other hand, we've got an entire article about it, and use the linked term in many articles. This fails WP:N and WP:UNDUE as a neologism. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete: It's a minor concept of railway platform arrangement, nothing more. The limited sources available only prove it exists; they don't prove any of the claims about its origin or the details of its usage. The list of examples is completely uncited and includes a number of other arrangements that vaguely resemble this. Additionally, there's no proof that those stations were actually intended to use the Spanish solution, or whether they simply happen to have this platform arrangement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two pages that verify the Barcelona origin of the term are [37][38] but I can't say for certain that the information didn't come from Wikipedia. Another 1970s book that mentions the term [39] in addition to the one linked above [40]. SpinningSpark 22:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If the concept does originate in the 1970s (as appears to the case), it may be that there are good sources which don't have an electronic footprint. The 1970s-1980s are particularly bad in that regard for rail transport. Transportation Research Record might be a good place to start. Per Pi.1415926535 the list in the article is a real problem, and if you remove it you're left with a thinly-sourced dictionary definition. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: The origin is the 1930s in Barcelona, not the 1970s. This article verifies the Munich S-Bahn, at least, has the "Spanish solution". SpinningSpark 18:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: After thinking about it for some time, i'd say merging to Railway platform would be appropriate (without the unsourced example stations list). Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about merging. It seems pretty clear this is heading to a merge. I have no fundamental problem with that, but the long list of examples is pure cruft and should be left behind. Of the material that seems appropriate to merge, the problem is that it's all unsourced. I'm marked up the current article to highlight statements which need supporting references before they can be merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added two book sources (this one and this one), both can be read online on gbooks, although in German. The lead now briefly summarizes the Spanish solution concept with these sources. Just for the sake of it, i also added one newspaper article stating/verifying the use of Spanish solution at München Karlsplatz, so now at least one station has a reliable, third-party source. All other cn-tagged statements remain unsourced; if sources verifying these can't be found, there won't be that much content to merge then, i guess. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly the initial entire rationale for advocating the deletion of this page couldn't have been more wrong! The term existed before, as a WP:BEFORE would have (and has) revealed. The nom should have been withdrawn at that point and it is quite, quite improper to now piggyback on the majorly flawed OP to raise extraneous "arguments" for anything other than a straight keep. The railway industry term "Spanish solution" is quite important in the industry, for those familiar with the industry, i.e., the subject matter experts, even if outsiders can spend five years wondering whether it is a term of art or not. Now, once one understands this is a highly relevant and usable industry term, what could be more natural than citing examples of its current and past use? The article stands on its own and is quite useful as is; any small weaknesses should be addressed by interested editors, and remember: AFD is not cleanup. XavierItzm (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that has been established by sources is that the term exists, and has for a while. Not its actual history, not any of the claims about its advantages. So once you take out everything that's unproven, what you're left with is a two-sentence lede plus a completely useless list of stations that happen to have that platform layout. A list that would be equally well served by a category, and completely fails to prove whether stations were constructed for one-way passenger traffic or not. This AfD is being conducted because the article is not possible to clean up to any reasonable standard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken that sources do not discuss the advantages. The Transit Toronto source I linked above discusses possible advantages for Toronto "Theoretically, this could cut dwell times by half" and "...the new arrangement with platforms on either side of the single track was an excellent opportunity to test the Spanish Solution and show how it could speed up loading and unloading times at Bloor-Yonge."
You are also mistaken that sources do not give the history. Its origins in 1930s Barcelona is well established in multiple sources. I also linked a source which verifies that São Paulo, Paris, Boston, China, Japan, and Germany have used this solution. The same source also points out that declining passenger numbers can cause the system to be abandoned citing New York as an example. SpinningSpark 23:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transit Toronto is not a WP:RS. From https://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0011.shtml: Transit Toronto is a web site wherein fans of the Toronto Transit Commission have gathered information on the system, and a bit later on, the authors describe themselves as, a group of people known as railfans. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided are enough to pass WP:GNG and this AfD was based on a faulty premise. o idea why this hasn't been closed yet. Smartyllama (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete premise seems to be flawed that numerous sources have been found. I would also oppose merging since it would seem undue on a general article about railway platforms. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 04:01, 4 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela! (TV-am)[edit]

Michaela! (TV-am) (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 has been unsourced since its creation in 2007. I have to question how notable the subject can be when it's not even mentioned at Michaela Strachan, the article devoted to the presenter the show was named after. Similarly, while you can find plenty of articles on Strachan, none seem to mention Michaela!. So this looks like a WP:GNG fail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - from the research I did, this isn't mentioned. This and this articles do not mention it; nor does TV-am. It either was very not notable or the creator of this article mistaked the name for one of the other shows she hosted. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage from secondary sources about this subject means failing WP:GNG and thus WP:TVSERIES. Just like Gonnym, was not able to find anything. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with article on Michaela Strachan. This article is only one and a half lines and three sentences long, so a merge should not prove difficult. However, I am willing to change this to a delete if reliable sources for this programme cannot be found. Vorbee (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehh... delete. No significant coverage, definitely fails WP:NTV. I'd be inclined to redirect it to Michaela Strachan but there's nothing on that page about the show and despite redirects being cheap it's an implausible search term with the parentheses. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:49, 9 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. Discounting the opinion of the blocked socks Micha Jo and Wikyam, and the likely sock Alyona2011 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Micha Jo). Sandstein 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Jovanovic[edit]

Pierre Jovanovic (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 fails WP:NAUTHOR. Very few of the claims in the article have appropriate sourcing, and a Google search turns up little except passing mentions and links to his own works. I attempted some cleanup, but wasn't able to find any additional sources (and neither has the author, following some discussion). This article was previously deleted in 2016, and the French Wikipedia has also deleted and salted this topic. Bradv 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • A book which is published and properly cited. See in article the refs 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,15,17,20
  • Scholarship articles or books. See refs 4,16,18,21
  • News organizations. See refs 11,12,19,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,36,38,39.
  • Plus we have Documentaries or TV shows 42,43. So the reliable sources criteria are well satisfied. Micha Jo (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources are high quality newspapers:
  • Les Echos[1] the major French daily business newspaper with 130,000 readers,
  • Le Temps[2] the major French language daily Swiss newspaper with 127,000 readers,
  • The Philippine Daily Inquirer[3] considered as the Philippine newspaper of record,
  • Mediapart[4] an influencial news website with 140,000 subscribers, with editions in French, English and Spanish, and which revealed some of the major recent French political scandals
  • Atlantico[5] an influencial French news website, with 15 full time journalists and 4 million unique readers per month. Micha Jo (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.lesechos.fr/03/06/2016/LesEchosWeekEnd/00034-010-ECWE_cette-femme-veut-revolutionner-la-finance.htm. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.letemps.ch/economie/portrait-banquiere-lorigine-crise-financiere. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/219648/have-a-talk-with-your-guardian-angel/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jolemanique/blog/070713/pierre-jovanovic-retour-au-standard-or-dantal-fekete. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/crise-blythe-masters-banquiere-jp-morgan-femme-plus-puissante-monde-58434.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • The argument that "Google search turns up little" has no encyclopedic value. Micha Jo (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC). Note I accept and conform to Anne Delong's argument. Micha Jo (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasons for deletion 2 years ago were understandably justified by lack of quality secondary sources. We believe that this has now been addressed correctly. The new article has been under review for 2 months before publishing. Before it was approved by L293D, it was reviewed by Art LaPella, Anne Delong, TAnthony, Andrewa, WikiDan61, Dan arndt. Micha Jo (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article meets the WP:NAUTHOR criteria:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. See the many books that reference Jovanovic's works, not only in French, but also in English, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Polish and Romanian. 800,000 books sold is quite an indication of notoriety. See Talk:Pierre Jovanovic.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Here the novel idea is that the Apocalypse book doesn't describe a physical catastrophe but a financial catastrophe.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He has published more than 12 books, plus his work was featured in a documentary and a national TV show (refs 34 and 35 in the Internet Movie Database). He is cited in 15 independent books, 2 scolarship articles and 5 news organization articles. Micha Jo (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Jovanovic is quite controversial. This is what makes his views so interesting. The fact that one of the major French newspapers (Le Monde) and that a book attack his work are proofs that he is not a mainstream thinker and that he is influential. That is a sign of notoriety. Micha Jo (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep authors with a million books sold in 7 languages away from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia risks again of being accused of censorship or bias. Just like in the Donna Strickland incident. Her wikipedia page was deleted just before she won a Nobel prize in Physics [[41]] [[42]] and User:Bradv/Strickland incident. Micha Jo (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - My French is limited, so I can't improve the referencing of this article, but I found some items that may be appropriate: book (2 pages), book (2 pages), book, Le Monde, I can't tell how relevant these are, but if any are useful maybe someone who can read them could add them to the article. Micha Jo, "encyclopedic value" refers to the content of articles, not discussions on talk pages. Also, while it's good that a book is published and "properly cited", to be a good reference it should have extensive factual information about the subject (in this case Mr. Jovanovic) which is written by someone who is not closely connected to the subject.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anne Delong, the three book sources all just mention the subject in passing (they all appear to be about the books, rather than the author). The fourth mentions him only as "conspiracy blogger". None of those sources actually provide any coverage of his life or work, and therefore do nothing to establish notability. Bradv 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      The books in reference do not cover his life or his biography, but they cite his books and discuss his ideas. Micha Jo (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Anne Delong: Thanks for your research. You cited 4 books, but there are many more. Please check the article Pierre Jovanovic, there are more than 15 books that reference him and cite his ideas.Micha Jo (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Anne Delong: Please have a look at the reference below from The Philipine Daily Inquirer. It is in English and from a major and reputable newspaper. Accordingh to Wikipedia, it is the Philippine's newspaper of record. It is a serious reference to one of Jovanovic's books, and it is more than a passing reference, and it has extensive factual information about the subject. I picked this one for your consideration because it is not in French. Maybe it could bring you to a "Keep" vote? Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Micha Jo, the article tells that Mr. Jovanic is a French journalist and that he has written a book. The rest of the article is about other people and about the general topic of seeing angels. I would not call this extensive, but it appears to be an acceptable source - you could insert it as a reference after the sentence that says he is a French journalist.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This never should have been accepted in the condition it was in to begin with but despite the bazillion sources, none of them meet the "significant, in depth" threshold. Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "significant in depth" is a concept of your own invention. It is nowhere cited in WP:Reliable Sources [User:Micha Jo|Micha Jo]] (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]
  • By recognizing that there is a "bazillion sources", you do recognize that the subject has notoriety. Micha Jo (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Micha Jo It's a concept of my own invention? really? I certainly didn't make that up considering I've never edited that page. The fact that there are a bazillion links does not mean that the sources are worth anything and certainly not in this case. Praxidicae (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: In General Notability Guideline [43], there is the concept of "significant coverage". This means addressing the topic directly (verified), no original research (verified) and not a trivial mention (verified). Your concept of "significant in depth" is NOT in these guidelines. You obviously do not like the topic of this article, but the facts are that it conforms to Wikipedia's policies and so it should be kept. Myself I do not like Pokemons, but I am not trying to argue that they should not be a part of our encyclopedia. Regards. Micha Jo (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We require significant and in depth coverage of subjects. Period. This isn't something I've made up. Can you please stop accosting everyone who votes against your wishes with an actual policy/consensus based argument?Praxidicae (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here we disagree. The subject has extensive and significant coverage, which is required by Wikipedia's guidelines. "in depth" is NOT a part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Micha Jo (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INDEPTH, though admittedly that is part of a guideline on events. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. You are right. "in depth" exists in Wikipedia's guidelines. But it applies to events and not to people. Micha Jo (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And do you realize that his books were translated into 6 different foreign languages ? This is quite remarkable and is a proof of serious third party "deep" interest in them. Micha Jo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you take this personally, but I am NOT attacking you! I am defending this page with precise and rational arguments, not unsubstantiated opinions. Micha Jo (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Please have a look at the new high quality and in-depth sources in the references below. They are all from high quality daily newspapers of news websites, in France, Switzerland, the Philipines. These sources alors are sufficient to establish notability! Micha Jo (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Move back to draft per Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space. Agree that it is not ready for the main namespace, but it has possibilities. For example the claim that one of his books sold 800,000 copies is supported by a valid reference to La Dépêche du Midi, but the first reference given for this factoid does not support the claim . And this doesn't necessarily make the book or its author notable even if established, but it's reason enough to encourage more work on the article. The previous deletion, and the deletion and salting of the French Wikipedia article, are similarly relevant only in inviting more investigation. This (and La Dépêche for that matter) is left-wing stuff, and the scholarship can be questionable at times, and how French Wikipedia deals with this is up to them, and no direct relevance here. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Andrewa: I respectfully disagree. The first reference #23 (Kernews) mentions over a million copies sold. The second reference #24 (La dépêche du Midi) mentions over 800,000 copies sold. I followed Dan arndt's edit who imposed the smaller number. So both references support the claim. Could you please agree to reconsider your recommendation to agree? Regards Micha Jo (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I don't know how I missed that. Reconsidering. (I did find it surprising and disappointing, and I'm glad I was wrong.) Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Andrewa: Also I believe that moving the article back to Draft will not improve it. It will be like a death toll. I have researched this article to the max, for a period of 2 months. I do not see how it could be improved. If it is sent to Draft, I would probably lose all interest and let it die there. Micha Jo (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone else might pick it up in order to save it from deletion as G13. There is a WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for example, and it appears active, Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep authors with a million books sold in 7 languages away from Wikipedia, then Wikipedia risks again of being accused of censorship or bias. Just like in the Donna Strickland incident. Her wikipedia page was deleted just before she won a Nobel prize in Physics [[44]] [[45]] and User:Bradv/Strickland incident. Micha Jo (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you said above as well. But that's not the issue here. The issue is simply, does the article as it stands belong in the article namespace? And if not, then what do we do about it?
The Donna Strickland incident is notable mainly for the blatant hypocrisy of the press... including in the two articles you cite. If they'd reported on her earlier then we would have too. But they didn't notice her either, and they have no excuse, and are doing nothing about it. While we rely on them, explicitly, and are investigating whether we can do better even so. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Thanks for accepting my correction on the number of copies sold. A question: in your opinion what is the precise reason why you think that the article should not go to main namespace? Could you please be more specific on what should be improved? Thanks Micha Jo (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change of !vote). As noted above, my move to draft was based on a misreading (blush) of the source. But he is not just notable for that one book, for example my Google of "Blythe Masters" "Default Swap" "Pierre Jovanovic" returned 2,290 ghits and the first few pages all seem relevant, many of them secondary sources in French describing his book on Blythe Masters. Controversial yes, and I notice that the aforementioned article does not currently mention the book. (Both articles are of course under wp:BLP.) But if he fails our notability criteria (and I am skeptical of that) then the criteria are wrong, and the article does seem now to meet our standards of sourcing... as one would hope following the impartial review preceding its move to article namespace. The repeated deletion and now salting of the French Wikipedia article is puzzling, but we are not bound to delete an article based on that decision any more than they are bound to create one if we keep it here, and even the French make mistakes sometimes. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, can you clarify which source you're referring to? Bradv 06:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Blush again but I deserve it) I looked at the two sources given as references for the claim that his book Enquête sur L'existence des Anges Gardiens sold more than 800,000 copies. One of them does support this claim exactly, but the other says more than a million... plus d’un million d’exemplaires... and my French should have been up to seeing that and it now hits me right in the eye but I missed it. Please do not tell any of my high school French teachers, they had such high hopes for me, let alone my Professor at UNE... As I say above, it puzzled me at the time but completely undermined my faith in the review (which was by a reviewer who does speak French but does not claim even an intermediate level... but as she is Canadian I suspect it's not too bad). And this was all an error on my part. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, what is your thought as to the quality of these sources? To me Kernews appears to be some sort of interview or blog, and La Depeche appears to be a biography submitted by a reader. Neither of these sources meet the level of quality journalism we expect in sources to establish notability. Bradv 13:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not using them to directly establish notability, and neither is the article. They're just being cited to substantiate the claim that this book has sold that many copies (I'm inclined to go with the million, that being the more recent figure by some months, but agree that there's a case for going with the smaller one and saying more than). I think they're adequate for that. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa, I assumed your change in vote was based upon these sources. Surely you can't be using Google hits as evidence of notability? Bradv 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The change in !vote was based purely on re-evaluation of the basis for it. My move back to draft was based on my horror at thinking (incorrectly) that the sourcing still included... in the very first reference I looked at... a source that just did not support the claim made. My keep (which was already part of the previous !vote in a way) is based on several factors one of which is the review by L293D who although relatively new has already proved to be wise, hardworking and here. The ghits are relevant too, not just because of their number but because of their quality, without which the number is meaningless. They suggest that the book on whose title I searched is significant... perhaps even notable in its own right. But I'll have a closer look at them when I get time. The number of sales claimed of the other book is significant too, and as I said I think the sources are sufficient to establish this. It may still turn out to be an elaborate fraud, but my thinking is that the risk of that is very small indeed, and that Wikipedia is better taking that risk and keeping the article. I respect that you probably don't agree. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv Both La Dépêche and Kernews are legitimate newspapers, not blogs.
  • According to French Wikipedia, la Dépêche du Midi is a newspaper covering the southwest of France (Ariège, Aude, Aveyron, Haute-Garonne, Gers, Lot, Hautes-Pyrénées, Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne and Nouvelle-Aquitaine), with 17 different daily editions, and has a distribution od 150,000 copies. It was founded in 1870. It is very influencial in French politics and often cited in national press or television. The holding company, Groupe La Dépêche also owns a news agency. In total, 1650 employees.
  • According to French Wikipedia, Kernews is a French regional radio + newspaper covering South Brittany and Vendée (La Baule, Saint-Nazaire, Nantes, Pornic, Noirmoutier et Vannes), founded 12 years ago. The first 3 sections of the reference article where the million copies sold is mentioned is written by the admin. The rest is an interview of Pierre Jovanovic. It is difficult to assess the influence of this mixed media, but it also interviews presidential candidates like François Asselineau, members of Parliament like Didier Julia, and regional businesspeople. Micha Jo (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Being "famous" is not the same as notable. Just because someone is known, doesn't mean anything for Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae:Notability is discussed above in detail. Here are some numbers: 12 books published, 800,000+ sold, in 7 languages, cited in 13 independent books and 16 secondary articles, 4 scholar articles or books, 2 TV documentaries or shows, 3 million unique visitors per year on his blog, 27,500 twitter followers. The criteria for WP:NAUTHOR are largely verified. Note: numbers have changed a little as I have discovered new sources, such as the prestigious newspapers Les Echos, Atlantico, Le Temps, L'évènement. Micha Jo (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Mister Jovanovic is a new breed of French independent thinkers. He is out of the mainstream and tries to defend himself from establishment critics. At a time when whistleblowers help people understand the truth hidden by some politicians, we have a duty to help and defend them. Wikipedia is the temple of the defense of truth and sincere contributors who bring real added value to our dear earth planet. [User:Wikyam|Wikyam]] (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) — Wikyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: There may be three better sources to be added, see User talk:Micha Jo#Sources. On balance my !vote remains at keep, but move back to draft would be preferred to deletion, despite what the main author said above. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 12 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. Withdrawn ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intermere[edit]

Intermere (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)

PROD'd by me, de-PROD'd by article creator who hasn't edited in two years but turned up two hours after my edit to de-PROD as a minor edit with no edit summary and no discussion anywhere else. It's not obligatory to give a reason for de-PROD, of course, but it is customary.

Anyway, my PROD rationale still applies: I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK. I have checked for reviews at Newspapers.com, Highbeam (long shot but one never knows), Google, GBooks, and GNews, and found only one trivial name-drop even mentioning the book. Author doesn't have an article to redirect to presently.

In nominating this for AfD, I also checked JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. Both have hits, mostly for topics unrelated to this book (Greek iambic poetry and optics, for example). T&F has one hit that looks related based on the title "Early American technological Edens", but I can't access it so I can't confirm how in-depth it discusses this book.

In any case, one single source is not enough to hang an article on, so even if it is in-depth, it's insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The T&F source raised by the nominator is a book review of an academic book about technological utopian writing. The review contains a trivial mention of Intermere in a footnote listing the works discussed in the reviewed book. The reviewed book [46] itself contains two passing mentions of Intermere. Bakazaka (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and OBK. If the nominator can only find one mention, and most of his results are for unrelated topics, he does not know how to use a search engine properly. The number is much greater than one: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] etc etc etc. There is a book review in The Reprint Bulletin [54] (which I found very quickly) and other coverage for this 1901 book by William Alexander Taylor (1837-1912). The book seems to have been reprinted many times. [I would like someone with a subscription to tell me what these are: [55]. James500 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for linking to those Google searches, James500. All of those results except from the one you linked in The Reprint Bulletin (which did not appear for me; perhaps you're aware that Google sometimes moderates its searches depending on the geographic location of the searcher?) appear to be trivial mentions or records of ads, which as you must know do not satisfy NBOOK or GNG. However, The Reprint Bulletin source in addition to the Configurations source provided by Bakazaka does appear to be enough, so I will withdraw. Side note: it's she, not he. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lee Hyun-se. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Boiled Angel[edit]

Hard Boiled Angel (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 and no sources in the article. The author is notable though. Merging isn't an option because it's unsourced. SL93 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the author's article. I agree that this can't be merged because there is no sourced content. Reyk YO! 13:44, 8 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 due to the minimal discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Markwell[edit]

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

Does not seem notable for inclusion, since the subject's only claim to notability is being president of a trade organization. WP:MILL architect. Sourcing is non-existent and I couldn't find better in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they offer the same claim of notability for inclusion and provide the same level of sourcing:

Mervyn Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Alan Barnes (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL RetiredDuke (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability in the articles as currently written. Deb (talk) 15:25, 5 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party (France)[edit]

Populist Party (France) (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)

very minor party, with no representative nor personality NAH 12:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep In addition to the articles above, I can find 'Le Pen soutenu par le Parti populiste' [59] and another Le Monde article about the far right [60]. It's not an easy name to find sources for, as other parties are described as 'Populist party / Parti populiste'. But it has enough to pass WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:39, 4 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative building of the North-Kazakhstan regional executive committee[edit]

Administrative building of the North-Kazakhstan regional executive committee (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 found no significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provisionally, until a Russian speaker can assess the sources. It is incorrect that the article is unsourced. Sources were included when the article was created. They were deleted by a vandal, along with most of the article text. I have now restored it. If the sourcing is insufficient for a standalone article, then merge in to Petropavl or North Kazakhstan Region. SpinningSpark 15:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fine with this being closed, but I'm not sure how to close it myself. SL93 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Write a comment such as "I withdraw this nomination." with "withdraw" in bold and a closer will spot it. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_4&oldid=1142615329"