Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 October	24 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semit[edit]

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

Possibly unnotable product. A google search doesn't bring up anything on the tobacco product. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It existed and a search of Google books pulls up a number of short citations, e.g. [1], [2] and [3]. If not enough coverage to support a standalone article consider merging to Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany#Anti-semitism. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried doing some searching to see if anything was picked up besides the two books at the article, but this was about it with only an extremely minor footnote. I'm not able to pick up anything in Google Books for the two currently cited sources either, so it looks like that while it more or less gets named dropped, there isn't significant discussion to warrant WP:GNG. As far as looking for merge/redirects, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany exists, but I don't see how anything would fit in there either in terms of WP:DUE, so delete in my book. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify -- This is essentially a dictionary definition with no scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 27 October 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. WP:SNOW closing this early; consensus is clear that WP:LISTN is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Egypt[edit]

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

The article is incomplete and will always be. There is so many clubs playing in the Egyptian Third Division and the Egyptian Fourth Division, and due to the lack of sources it's almost impossible to have a complete list of the clubs in Egypt. Deleting the article is probably not the best option, so redirecting it to List of Egyptian Premier League clubs might be a good move, since that article is more improved and includes similar content. Ben5218 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep not to WP:OSE, but we have these lists for every other country, and those lists aren't necessarily meant to compile a complete list of every team playing in the country but rather to provide a level of navigation and information. Passes WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Clearly passes WP:NLIST. Smartyllama (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list for navigation purposes. Needs cleanup more than anything. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I think Smarty and SportingFlyer mean WP:LISTN, I am neither for or against here. I really don't see how these lists are helpful at all. Govvy (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cheers. I always forget if the N comes first or last in football discussions! SportingFlyer talk 23:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand as per SportingFlyer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NLIST, and need extra sourcing and clean up. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN but needs cleanup .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, passes WP:NLIST, as GianSnowman alluded to the article needs improving not deleting. We have many similar list article such as List of football clubs in Brazil, List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia, and so forth. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:43, 28 October 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 Harry Chapin due to coverage in reliable sources insufficient to establish notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Fields (musician)[edit]

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

Non-independently-notable member of Harry Chapin's band. No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:MUSICBIO.

Guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO indicate that the appropriate action in this case is to redirect to the main band, Harry Chapin, which I have done in the past, (so has Doomsdayer520). However, both times the redirect was reverted by Citybuild122. The second time, additional sources were provided, [4], [5], [6], but they do not help demonstrate notability as none of them can be considered independent in-depth coverage in a reliable source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am wrong, and I won’t argue if I am, but I have been operating under the generalized notability guideline that if someone has been featured in an article they are considered notable. It seems to me like there are so many guidelines for notability on Wikipedia, that if you pass one of them then the article stays. Citybuild122 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in the criteria, often overlooked, is may be notable. To be the subject of an article either may or may not be enough depending on multiple factors, pending these aDf discussions. At the very least, though, it helps build the case for keep...but it's not automatic. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality is an important consideration. As WP:GNG states, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Of the three additional sources I linked to above, two and three are the personal websites of the Harry Chapin band and Howard Fields himself, which is pretty much the opposite of an independent source. Number one is in a small publication that doesn't have clear editorial policies, which makes it probably not reliable, but even more important is that it merely mentions Fields and quotes him on the topic of the band–this isn't in-depth coverage of Fields himself as a subject. The other two articles provided cited in the article are also published on the band's or Field's personal websites. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I feel the fact that he was in Harry Chapin’s band makes him notable enough. He was involved in numerous high selling albums reaching in the millions. He has been mentioned in some way in multiple news articles. Citybuild122 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in looking at the policy at WP:MUSICBIO, which states members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t feel like I’ve really been given the chance (or anyone else for that matter) to improve the article before this deletion nomination.Citybuild122 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources about any career outside of playing for Chapin that would establish independent notability, -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Permanently Redirect to Harry Chapin - The article's creator and un-redirect-er, CityBuild122, has said several times here and in edit comments that Mr. Fields appeared in many articles that prove his notability. The next step is to actually deliver those articles if they exist. I can find no independent media sources that get beyond Mr. Fields's existence as a member of Harry Chapin's band, so in my view nothing can be said about the gentleman except that he was present during Chapin's career. That can be done at Chapin's article. I may change my vote if CityBuild122 can deliver something that surpasses the policy-based weaknesses described by Rosguill in this debate. Meanwhile, if the ultimate decision here is to redirect, steps should be taken to prohibit reversions of that move. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the notability guideline for people, multiple articles can be sourced to provide notability. Note that it never says anything about the person being the subject. The following news articles qualify: article 1 Article 2 If you require more, I will gladly give more. Those two alone show that multiple sources have coveted him and it passes the criteria. Also, he was in The Night That Made America Famous, a multi award nominated broadway play. That’s significant. Citybuild122 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two news articles have been cited in the article in which they both mentioned Howard Fields and speak to him. In addition that, other articles have been cited. Here are the two articles:article 1 Article 2 According to WP:NBIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", he passes the criteria. Note, it never states that he has to be the subject of the article. Therefore, he passes the criteria and the page should be kept. Citybuild122 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I acknowledge that you found two news articles in which Mr. Fields is mentioned, but they are both about individual concerts in which Fields is merely quoted in a couple of sentences (Roxbury) or named just once as being present (Fort Myers). You have cited WP:NBIO, but this guideline says "...independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," with the key term being MAY. I must conclude that those two sources do not achieve much on Mr. Fields's behalf by being combined, and all other available sources appear to fan sites and promotional sites. My vote will remain as-is, based on the WP:EXIST standard, but again I have no objection to mentioning Mr Fields's fine work with Harry Chapin's music at Chapin's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the basic criteria guideline doesn’t state that anyone here needs to interpret the guideline. It states that the independent sources may be combined to prove notability and a subject is presumed notable. There is no “May be notable”. Citybuild122 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but re-read WP:MUSICBIO. Under the heading about criteria, the very first line reads "may be notable." Establishing notability is not a mere exercise in the rote check off of a list of criteria. Hence these AfD discussions. That is exactly the reason the word "may" is specified through out wikipedia's various notability guidelines. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the guideline that I’m referring to is WP:NBIO. Not the one you referenced. In the one that I am talking about, he passes the guideline. The thing that I don’t understand is why this entry is still ongoing if I’ve cited a guideline in which he passes notability? Citybuild122 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have combined sources to build an argument, we have combined Wikipedia guidelines to build an argument. Now let the consensus process play out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. I combined articles for a guideline, not an argument. You are all completely ignoring the guideline that I have cited. The article passes the guideline. You can’t combine guidelines to get something deleted just because you don’t want it on wikipedia. Citybuild122 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even when combined, those two sources do not demonstrate significant coverage of the subject: they barely mention Howard Fields, and are clearly promotional/routine coverage even in terms of their analysis of their primary subject. You're welcome to disagree with this evaluation, but claiming that NBIO allows you to combine any two articles to demonstrate notability without a defense of how their combined content is significant is a pretty weak argument (and arguably wikilawyering, which is frowned upon) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Chapin. WP:MUSICBIO is clear on this, musicians need to demonstrate individual notability outside of the band to warrant their own article. Even the sources linking to Steve Chapin Band is really about the music of Harry Chapin. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. While the Steve Chapin Band do perform some songs of harry, it has been clearly stated they play original music. Regardless, the Steve Chapin Band isn’t physically “the same as Harry Chapin”. They are an independent band that has been the subject of news articles.Citybuild122 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chapin’s article. Subject does not meet any independent notability guidelines. Trivial sources mentioned above may qualify as fact-checkers for referencing, not as meeting notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chapin's article, since his band does not have its own article. Simply does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 31 October 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. Clear consensus to keep this, possibly under a different title. The question of renaming/disambiguation can happen on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly method[edit]

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

This article doesn't have an sources which address, or even define the topic "scholarly method". If I google the term I get Wikipedia and its mirrors, and various papers describing various methods which happen to be scholarly. Maybe there are sources available but please find them. Chain Suave (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I tried, don't blame me Chain Suave (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. This article is alternatively titled scholarship. That is the very thing that Wikipedia is all about, and if that's not notable we should all give up and go write blogs instead, or else change our definition of notable. Whole books are written on the subject: Scholarship: Its Meaning and Value, Ancient Greek Scholarship, The Politics and Processes of Scholarship, Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship, and Hebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World. Many books are written on scholarship in specific fields; Design and Scholarship, Scholarship in the Digital Age, Scholarship and Christian Faith, and The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in High. In fact, there is so much material out there that one article is just not going to be enough to cover it all. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are about "the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible"? Chain Suave (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do wonder what past account Chain Suave operated under, since Chain Suave is most certainly not a new editor, but scholarship is a WP:Notable topic. Rename the article to "Scholarship" if needed, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We already have a Scholarship article. This article therefore should not have "scholarship" bolded in the lead as a WP:Alternative title. Some merging is perhaps in order. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: No, that's wrong, and merging would be highly inappropriate. The scholarship article is about the financial award, not the activity of scholarly investigation. Bolding the term from an incoming disambiguation link is quite normal. This article could just as well be retitled with a disambiguator such as scholarship (scholarly investigation). SpinningSpark 00:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Correcting ping. SpinningSpark 00:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the Scholarship article is about. What it is about does not mean that its format cannot be changed and that both of these topics cannot fit in one article or that this article cannot be merged elsewhere. And, no, "scholarship" should not be bolded as the alternative title in this article. It is not the alternative title and it having that title bolded in the introduction can lead readers and editors to think that "scholarship" redirects here. Yes, the "Not to be confused with Scholasticism, Scholarism, or Scholarship" hatnote is currently there, but still. Were you even aware that "scholarship" is its own Wikipedia article when you made your comment above? It does not seem like it. Furthermore, there are no sources in the article using "scholarship" as the alternative title for "scholarly method." What reliable sources do so? Right now, Wikipedia is defining ""scholarship" in two different ways by having "scholarship" as the alternative title in this article. We can ask about the bolding at the WP:Disambiguation talk page if you like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware, and no it is not an appropriate merge. Two topics with the same name is entirely what disambiguation is about and bolding is part of that. SpinningSpark 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here here and here, I queried editors at the WP:Disambiguation talk page and WP:Alternative title talk page about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to Scholarship. The two topics are the same topic. The bolded "scholarship" in the lede as a WP:Alternative title say this. NB. This will involve a lot of work, given the very poor state of Scholarship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: I'm really at a loss to understand how a merge could ever work here, or why people think they are the same topic. Scholarship is a monetary (or other) award given to students to help them through their studies. Scholarship, in the sense of this article, is the activity of professional specialists gathering, analysing and disseminating information. Please explain how those two topics are in any way related, or what the first, defining sentence of the merged article would be. SpinningSpark 11:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, I guess I skimmed scholarship way too quick. I was thinking of wikt:scholarship#3. “The activity, methods or attainments of a scholar”. Clearly, scholarship is ambiguous. I’ve heard of scholarships of course, but always part of a two or more word term, and tending more often to be called a stipend if just one word. Also “award”s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have not confused the two topics. I know what a scholarship is. I would state more, but I would be repeating what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, are you talking to me? Did I accuse you of confusion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I was replying to you and to Spinningspark. You were saying how you heard of scholarships. Spinningspark questioned "why people think [scholarly method and scholarship] are the same topic." I was saying that, like you, I know what a scholarship is and I have not confused the topics. For anyone confusing them, though, if the two terms were not listed as synonyms in the lead of this article, there would be no confusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Scholarship to Scholarship (financial support), make Scholarship (disambiguation) to point to Scholarly method & Scholarship (financial support). "Scholarship" is an alternative title for this topic and should be bolded in the lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, regarding alternative titles, I'm asking the following: What reliable sources are there stating that "scholarship" is an alternative term for "scholarly method"? That is one reason I object to "scholarship" being bolded in the lead of this article. The other is that "scholarship" is currently a Wikipedia article. "Scholarship" does not redirect here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't SpinningSpark, 23:29, 23 October 2018, give enough sources using "scholarship" in titles, where it is synonymous with scholarly method? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where his sources state that "scholarship" is an alternative term for "scholarly method." And we can't engage in WP:OR by stating they mean the same thing, whether going by titles or otherwise. Then again, the sources he listed are WP:PAYWALL. But even Googling the two terms together with different phrases such as "also known as," I see no reliable sources stating that they are synonyms. We have Spinningspark saying they are two different topics (which they are when defining "scholarship" the way that the Wikipedia Scholarship article does) and yet wanting the terms presented as synonyms in the lead of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course scholarship is synonymous with [use of] the scholarly method. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should not state "also known as" or "or" unless there are reliable sources backing up the statement. Renaming the article and removing "scholarship" unless it's part of the title is the way to go. That, or merging this content elsewhere. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although perhaps make moves as suggested by User:SmokeyJoe above to clarify naming, perhaps as a direct outcome of this AFD or perhaps by a follow-on wp:RM. The "move" vote by SmokeyJoe should be interpreted as a "Keep" vote, for AFD purposes. Basically this is clearly a different topic than scholarships as stipends. --Doncram (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for sure, Keep. Stuff needs fixing, but there is not a case for deletion. The "scholarly method" of research is notable, SpinningSpark provided overwhelming evidence that "scholarship" is used to name this topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move Scholarship to Scholarship (financial support), and Scholarly method to Scholarship (methodology), disambiguating the base page name. bd2412 T 01:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Akbarov[edit]

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

not notable: trivial publications, and "“One of the Recommended Doctors of Azerbaijan” " is not a significant award. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete appears to be WP:TOOSOON; I have seen this kind of thing where somebody wanted to get on some board, and someone on the board says "You don't have a WP article!" so they try to make one.Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there boards of any value that let the likes of Wikipedia do their homework for them???? Largoplazo (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a "recommended doctor" is not one of our notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 31 October 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 per WP:SNOW nom blocked as a Sock and Troll and the delete !votes were almost exclusivly not based on policy guidelines or essays and from SPA. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury Chronicle[edit]

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

Page has been created from questionable self-published sources. The sources used to support the page are not reliable, verifiable and all primary. Some of them even link to the Shrewsbury Chronicle's website. This is unacceptable Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although I say this keep with some hesitation. The article begins by saying that the Shrewsbury Chronicle is one of the oldest weekly newspapers in the United Kingdom, and lists a number of notable people who have contributed to the newspaper, which should make the paper notable. However, the references are all primary references. Rather than delete the article, I suggest we have a tag pointing out that the references are all primary, and that the article could be improved with some secondary sources. Vorbee (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some content and secondary refs. I think the paper meets point 2 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. It could also meet point 1, have produced award winning work, but the source for the award is poor. Tacyarg (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable local newspaper. There is nothing wrong with refs from a subject's own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - “Subject’s notability has been established using primary sources therefore the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Keerti.kasat (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)User:keerti.kasat — keerti.kasat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Wiki User - The content of this page is setup using primary sources and hence it is not valid for wikipedia. Please delete the page -- User:Avinash (talk) 1:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Avinash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. Creating single-use accounts to put your point of view across does not help your credibility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is only supported by secondary sources and while it's historical significance means it might meet point 2 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, there are not sufficient sources to verify this notability and the page should be deleted. Pushprathi (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references now seem to indicate sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic notability. Can I take this opportunity to raise how the originator of this delete request has done almost nothing else but try to get articles deleted... and lo and behold there are further new accounts supporting the delete requests... Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable local newspaper with a long history of over 200 years. However, the article does still need some improvement in terms of references. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This article is clearly poorly sourced. Contrary to what the inclusionists here are saying the Shrewsbury Chronicle has little historical significance. It is a free local newspaper that primarily reports on marrow growing contests and garden gnome thefts. It advertises scummy businesses to its core demographic of alcoholics, stay at home mums and pensioners. The Shrewsbury Chronicle is a waste of server space and should be deleted at once. Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this is a clear nomination from a troll who also appears to have an axe to grind against the paper. Speedy close. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sumorsǣte: I think it is good that newcomers to our community feel as passionately about deletionism as I do. Please don't create a hostile environment for new Wikipedians. It's not very nice. Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author of this article did not cite authoritative sources. Not notable and possibly not original research. Aso2018 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)— Aso2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. There's something strange about the nomination and all the new editors popping up to say delete. Methinks a SPI might be in order Lyndaship (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: yep looks very fishy to me. Some amazing skills demonstrated for a newbie...I have got eyes on their edits. Agree with @Necrothesp: too and have posted a warning about their delete !vote which I believe is totally inappropriate. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a bit baffled by elements of this debate - particularly the proposer now having tagged Hansard in the article as not a reliable source and better source needed. I also wonder if the proposer carried out WP:BEFORE. See also the similar debate on the Shropshire Star. Tacyarg (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@Tacyarg: Ok. Well, I'm a reasonable fellow, and as a reasonable fellow, I can see that having reviewed the evidence this subject is indeed notable. I hereby change my vote to *Keep, I apologize for my schoolboy error and as an act of contrition hereby put myself forward to fix the page.Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been delete !votes you can no longer WP:WITHDRAW your nomination but this can be Snowball kept I believe seeing the quality of the delete !votes such as This article is only supported by secondary sources and also possibly not original research which are actually keep rationales. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nom has been blocked as a troll/sock/poor speller this can be snow closed now. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 26 October 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 per WP:Speedy keep as the nom was blocked as a troll/sock/poor speller. (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shropshire Star[edit]

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

Page was made using primary sources many of which link back to the publication's own website. There are insufficient secondary sources to support the statements made in the page Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regional newspaper which we have many already accepted on Wikipedia and are notable with the right references. This should have had a improvement notice not deletion. davidstewartharvey 23 October 2018

Comment Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta I have found several independent sources with a few minutes. They are in the article now.
Keep - This is quite a large regional newspaper, to suggest deletion is extreme, but the accusation of primary sources is correct. I would state that the originator has not applied the right clean-up template to the article. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The joy of all things Your comments are fair. Which cleanup template would you say is appropriate in this instance? Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Diego Sanchez from Bogotta This would have been more appropriate Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable local newspaper. There is nothing wrong with refs from a subject's own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References now in the article indicate sufficient substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable large regional newspaper. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well-known regional newspaper. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 25 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Outsider Musicians[edit]

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

Unfeasible list without strict inclusion criteria. And WP:OR. TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Article

(I wasn't sure where to post my defense, so it appears here on this deletion page, in the talk tab of this page, and in the talk tab of the article.)

TheLongTone, I hear your criticism, but I will note that Outsider music is an extant page which is linked to the page Outsider Art, which does have an associated List of Outsider artists article. This article includes folks such as Henry Darger, Nick Blinko, James Hampton, and others. That such a compendium already exists for the fine arts refutes your objection that the creation of this list in unfeasible.

With respect to your assertion that there are no "strict inclusion criteria" for this article, I note that I did provide a rule set for contributing to this list and that this rule set is a copy-paste from the long standing List of intelligent dance music artists. If you think that the criteria utilized there is somehow not applicable to this article, then I can fortify my criteria further with a definition of outsider music (I will note that no such definition is offered for IDM in List of intelligent dance music artists).

I can appeal to the authority of Irwin Chusid for a definition per this interview ^[1], though I think that this merely re-contextualizes the well-understood term "Outsider" from fine arts to music (again, see Outsider art). If you would like, I can request that users only add artists who are called "Outsider" by major publications: i.e. The Shaggs as outsider musicians is uncontroversial. ^[2] ^[3] I'm sure there will be some hairsplitting down the line, but I'm confident that this list is feasible.

Barelygaraidh (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Barelygaraidh[reply]

References

^ "Psalms in the Key of Z". Retrieved 2018-10-15.
^ "Unbelievable Holy Grail Footage of the Shaggs from 1972 Found". Retrieved 2018-10-15.
^ "The Shaggs Reunion Concert was Unsettling, Beautiful, Eerie, and Will Probably Never Happen Again Found". Retrieved 2018-10-15.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The outsider music article defines outsider musicians in part as "they commonly exist outside of the music establishment and usually suffer from mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities"^[1] (Link). As such, without sources verifying that said musicians on the list have such issues, the article is in violation of WP:BLP policy as contentious content (WP:BLPREMOVE), indirectly labeling subjects with conditions that they may not necessarily have. As of this post, the article is unreferenced (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harper, Adam (2014). Lo-Fi Aesthetics in Popular Music Discourse (PDF). Wadham College. p. 48. Retrieved March 10, 2018.

Comment. Category:Outsider musicians has 101 articles in it; any discussion of the corresponding list is incomplete at best without considering that content. Any article that does not support inclusion should be removed from that category. But if the inclusion of those articles in that category is supported by the content and sourcing in each article, then the list obviously is verifiable as well. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. Most of the entries are not identified as outsiders in their articles, let alone lead to a source for the claim, so this is a gross BLP violation. If it's cleaned up during the course of this AfD, then a revision deletion might be sufficient, but at least the history has to go. BLP is a core policy and one of our more serious ones. The category needs a good clearout too. SpinningSpark 22:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't that the truth. How is Brian Wilson--for almost 6 decades releasing music on major labels, backed by top session musicians, and performing on traditional broadcast mediums--considering an "outsider" musician? ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the very simple reason that reliable sources have called him that and keep calling him that. That's the gold standard of any categorizing on Wikipedia, be it "subjective" or "objective". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't "outsider music" a subjective label, anyways? How could a list like this not be 100% someone's opinion? What about people like Death Grips and Tyler, the Creator and BROCKHAMPTON (band)? Aren't they kind of experimental and weird, and therefore "outsiders"💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you mean subjective rather than objective. SpinningSpark 15:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's what I meant. I dumb, lol.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ ~~Conditional keep~~ Delete – A list of outsider musicians is valid article idea, it just needs better sources. This article has only 2 citations for a hundred people. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ilovetopaint: where are you proposing to redirect to? It would only make sense to redirect somewhere on Wikipedia where a list of outsider musicians existed. Do you know of such a location? Any other target would be confusing and useless to the reader, regardless of the notability of the concept. SpinningSpark 15:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this a rhetorical question? To Outsider music, of course. The article can be remade afterward if all the listings are cited to reliable sources. If that happens before this discussion closes, then I'd support Keep.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it was not rhetorical, and you have now !voted twice contradictorially. The fact is, there is currently nothing in that article to redirect to. What you are really proposing is a merge. You rightly point out that the list would need to be fully verified first. But that is entirely the rationale for deletion and it is not likely to happen in the time scale of this AfD. The only realistic way forward would be to construct a new list in the article from scratch. SpinningSpark 10:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm against a merge. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything here can be referenced to reliable third party sources that call certain artists Outsider musicians as a matter of professional opinion. Unfortunately, most entries are currently not cited, but that's a cleanup issue. Feel free to remove any unsourced entries. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an unnecessary content fork, especially when we already have Category:Outsider musicians. Anyone in this list article who is not already in the category can have the category template added to the bottom of their articles, if they are described as "outsider music" with verification in the respective text. Particularly noteworthy musicians can be added as examples to spruce up the main Outsider music article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates are not redundant even if they have the same scope. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:54, 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) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure why Barret "Dr. Demento" Hansen is on this list. He made his career as a disc jockey with his own syndicated show, not as a musical performer in his own right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

similarly William Shatner.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Tyrrell[edit]

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

I can find no in-depth coverage of him, only passing mentions and routine listings, the two sources in the article are not reliable Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While he does meet #6 of WP:MUSICBIO as "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", the guideline page also states "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd argue that the two bands he was a member of are both not notable, and therefore he doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO - the bands in question may both have independently included future internationally famous musicians, but neither of them pass WP:BAND in their own right. Richard3120 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent notability outside of a few bands he was involved with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and I agree with the above editor who doesn't think the two bands he was part of meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:33, 31 October 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. I'm happy to restore to someone's draft space if requested but no editor has yet. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Woo-yeong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Jeong has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Good enough start, he is only 19 years old, sources are WP:ROUTINE, however he is being picked up by South Korea U14, U17 and U20 suggests he is on the correct path to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft with preference to draftify. Well-crafted article, but fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY at the moment. He certainly looks to be on the path to meet NFOOTY at some point, so it would probably be best to keep this article preserved in draft space until it could be moved back to mainspace. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:TOOSOON - Article would be recreated when subject meets the requirement in the future. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space - per fist two !votes, as the subject is highly likely to fulfill WP:NFOOTY in the future, and even if he doesn't the draft space can always be deleted if need be. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:00, 26 October 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. So I guess this remains part of the Red List of Endangered Articles :-) Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HCA Red List of Endangered Crafts[edit]

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

This is bordering on WP:FRINGE calling crafts/trade endangered in the same way species are. It's got little coverage in terms of the actual topic "List of Endangered Crafts" outside of the few sources included, one of which is an interview, another primary and a passing mention and not much beyond that. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems ridiculous as an idea, and more importantly, there's a lack of available RS. Natureium (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The two Guardian sources and the Independent source already in the article are sufficient for it to meet GNG. That nom thinks the idea is "bordering on WP:FRINGE" is neither here nor there. Make a policy-based case for this being a fringe idea if you can, but I don't think you'll be able to. Arguing by assertion isn't relevant. Further, Natureium may think it "seems ridiculous" but again, that's not a reason for deletion. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me at all, but nevertheless I am not asserting that as a reason for keeping. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Assuming the nominator is unfamiliar with heritage crafts in the UK, I have expanded the article with relevant RS citations, none of which are passing mentions (please check), and none of which are fringe publications, mostly the major British broadsheets, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent and other reliable sources, certainly mainstream and far from a fringe theory as per nom WP:FRINGE. I can assure Natureium that the issue of the disappearance of cultural heritage is far from ridiculous as evidenced by the production of this red list and the seriousness with which it has been subsequently evaluated. Mramoeba (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Times, the Guardian and the Independent is fairly in-depth. The Telegraph item is a slide show with less in the captions than I'd like, but it's definitely more than a passing mention and certainly doesn't hurt the case. I don't see how WP:FRINGE applies; they're making an analogy (for, one might argue, marketing purposes), not advancing a conspiracy theory. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have called it WP:OR instead of fringe, because that's precisely what this is in combination with total nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Original Research in the Wikipedia sense of that term. It's just research. They didn't make up an idea and try to publicize it on Wikipedia first. They had an idea, did the spade-work, presented their conclusions and got covered in secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment only. Thanks XOR'easter, The Telegraph often runs a web 'in pictures' alongside its full print article and I used the short one, but in fact the full article is great as it lists the lost crafts in depth. This is the full article so I will amend the page with it. Cheers for noting that. Mramoeba (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only silly thing here is the people who think that concern about dying craft skills is silly. This is the kind of knowledge that has to be learnt in practice from a master. Once it has gone, it's gone. Not a week goes by without some documentary or other trying to reconstruct some ancient skill. Anyway, that's all beside the point. The question here is whether or not the Red Book is notable. Other's have already shown that it is through newspaper articles. For book sources, we have Craft Economies which has a non-trivial discussion, and even Wisden discusses it inasmuch as it impinges on cricket. SpinningSpark 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the dumbest article subject I have ever heard. Gilding, or goldbeating is mentioned in the article as dying off in the UK. I've seen people do this practice elsewhere in the past ten years-- restorers and framers sometimes do it. How do you they thing gilded furniture gets restored? Despite the article claims, you can easily get gold gilding done in the UK. Load of malarkey, in the form of OR. I know this is not a great deletion argument, but why not have an article called list of technologies no longer used in UK, starting with 8-tracks?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a great deletion argument. Gilding and goldbeating are different things, goldbeating is wikilinked in the article for you to read what it is, and the article doesn't claim anything about gilding which is a different skill. The deletion discussion is not here for whether you find the subject matter 'dumb', or what you have seen, and WP:OR doesn't apply here, as already reasoned above by XOR'easter as the sources are WP:RS and secondary. As for your suggestion of a list of obsolete technologies in the UK you might want to start with any of the history of technology pages and add your suggestion to List of obsolete technology. Mramoeba (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone in the UK is still pounding some gold flat somewhere. The expanded title of the article at AfD is List of crafts in the UK determined to be extinct by a little-known UK organization. I'll stop there as this article is really not worth discussing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced list . A personal view of whether an article subject is dumb is not a basis for deciding inclusion of WP, as I would probably remove half the content and someone of opposite interests to mine would remove the other half. "someone is still pounding gold flat somewhere" -- this is pretty much the definition of endangered. Endangered is not extinct. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be well-sourced, but it's still a list of trivia by a tiny organization that is currently advertising for a three day a week executive director. One might ask what the point of saying goldbeating is extinct in the UK is, when anyone in the UK can have it shipped overnight it from the following nearby manufacturers, aka goldbeaters:

Delafee of Switzerland,
Gerstendorfer in Germany,
Manetti in Florence, Italy,
Noris-Blattgold in Germany... and so on.

The information we're promoting here from the HCA is just cultural trivia in the age of global commodities. It is funny though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added five sources. I might point out that the claim at the end about Cavendish Pianos being the last manufacturer of pianos in the UK is true, but misleading in context: they were founded in 2012. This obviously opens up the possibility of an article called List of UK crafts undergoing revival. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority[edit]

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

Could not find anything other than passing mentions or promotional material on this entity. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Entirely promotional and unsourced, little more than a condensed About page. Searches for sources bring about nothing significant. Article creator was previously acting on the account User:Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority, but was renamed to User:GrisetteMB18. The current Executive Director of the MBVCA is one Grisette Roque. The article has already been deleted twice under G11, and Draft:Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority was deleted under G11 a month ago. Sam Sailor 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: Woof. I definitely didn't look that deep when nominating. In light of that I've reported the page creator to WP:AIV for a promotional-only account block. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Repeated violation of policy against promotion on Wikipedia (WP:NOTPROMO), and repeated efforts to recreate are a waste of valuable editor and administrator time. Bakazaka (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTPROMO. This should only be re-created if it's completely neutral and from someone uninvolved with the VCA in any way shape or form. But I doubt with its history we can get there by any means. Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and SALT to prevent recreation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Repeated spam by blocked COI. Cabayi (talk) 22:50, 26 October 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) Vexations (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chan (artist)[edit]

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

Reason, written like a resume, questionable neutrality and notability, reads self promotion Meaningzone (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak~~ keep I haven't had time to analyze the impressive collection of sources on the article though I suspect they've been puffed out at least a little; but if even half of them actually focus on the article subject she probably meets WP:GNG and I'm a notorious inclusionist when it comes to marginal BLPs. Concur that the article needs a lot of work to be less promotional but there's probably a stub to salvage here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV: Indifferent I am the subject mentioned in the biography page. I did not start this page and had no control over how I was represented. But yes, I have an "impressive collection of sources" citing me in my short-lived academic career.Usrrname(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice you're here, but your opinion won't matter much as we'll decide based on published sources, and arguments by the subject are pretty much ignored. I'd just sit back and watch the show were I you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jennifer Chan is an important Canadian-based net artist. She has had a number of solo shows and particiated in innumerable group exhibitions. The citations included are from major sources in the art world and all name her as an important player in Internet art. Not sure how this is a "weak keep" or even a page worth considering for deletion. The page is neutral and there seems to be no coi. 13ab37 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not provide a valid reason for deletion. Being promotional and or needing editing is not a reason. The nominator should see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. As to notability, secondary coverage is not the strongest, but it is there and certainly meets GNG. A profile in Canadian Art is significant. She is mentioned here in Hyperallergenic, again briefly in Canadian Art, here in a list of 25 net artists of repute, here on Momus.ca, here on a site published by the Kunstkritik foundation, here on a Polish art site and here briefly here in an independent magazine. Additionally, why is Artforum devoting a paragraph to her if she is not a notable person? I do not need any more info to plainly extract the fact that she is widely mentioned in reliable sources. The depth is not ideal, but the Canadian Art enty is certainly in-depth. Additionally, her video works are held and distributed by Vtape in Toronto, which is an internationally recognized distributor of video art. GNG met. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:"The page is neutral" it reads like a puffed up resume here are some examples:--" with great rigor, a sharp sense of irony, and playfulness"' clearly an opinion cited or not."Her influential 2011 essay" again but with no citation, not neutral."She pushes her fascination for tech related fetishes even further in her breakout piece from the same year," wildly not neutral and self promotional. None of this seems like it belongs on Wikipedia it sounds all like information that should be hosted on the artist's website in the form of a resume. See WP:NOTRESUME , WP:NOTPROMO Meaningzone (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the items you mentioned as problematic are no longer in the article, as I clicked the edit button and rewrote them to have a neutral tone. That is a much faster and simpler process than creating an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTCLEANUP, which makes clear that none of these problems are reasons to delete the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the provided links "By the same token, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it" the reasons I mentioned are listed under reasons for deletion on WP:DEL-REASON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaningzone (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems the original concern with promotional language has been fixed, and the suggestion that the citations are fake have been easily proven false with a quick Google search (and by looking at some magazines on my bookshelf). I don't see any remaining arguments in favour of this article's deletion. Jghampton (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw this on my watchlist, and I thought I would pop in here despite my unofficial semi-pause at AFD. Full declaration: I have met the subject of the article once, at a dinner, and knew of her work prior to that, but none of that will keep me from an NPOV assessment of the facts. Actually ThatMontrealIP already did it, and I agree with everything they said. I want to underscore, that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, even though this has resulted in some cleanup in this case. --Theredproject (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just to add my voice to the chorus of keeps :) i have never met the artist, but i have seen her work & it is significant. she has been internationally recognised in the field of internet art for quite some years now. i'm sure that the article will be further developed by researchers in this field. Frock (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State of article after cleanup has convinced me this isn't a marginal case at all. Changing my !vote accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is an often referenced artist in the field of net art and the tone in which the article is written seems appropriate at this moment. Clco (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sliver Records[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this label is notable or has worked with any notable bands (or any bands, notable or otherwise.) The only sources I can find are primary and their own website doesn't even work, so we're left with a random Facebook page, discogs and allmusic, which looking at the editing history there, appear to have been added by random users and haven't been vetted yet, so there's little in the way of WP:V. Of the notable bands mentioned, I don't see anything even in the way of primary sources from them that so much as mention Sliver. Praxidicae (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable record label. Can find no reliable sources discussing the topic, so fails GNG. Of the notable artists listed in the article, none of their articles mention Silver Records, so it does not appear the label has influenced their careers, so a non-notable label in that regard. The label fails my personal threshold regarding "several" notable acts, and does not have a long history of releasing material by notable artists, so fails NMUSIC#5 inverse-logic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least 3 notable bands. What do you mean notable? (in country music or disco? they are unknown of course) .How do you "decide" notable? Bands with multiple international releases are notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkyxmaz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bands are notable - but it appears this particular record label has merely re-released previously issued material as part of compilations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 78.26's surface noise. ——SerialNumber54129 15:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ouch! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 23 October 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) 21:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Civil War[edit]

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

The article has many problems, aside from being a pointless topic, the article is written very poorly and is biased towards the 'supporting case' RandomIntrigue (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially very skeptical of this article's notability upon seeing this AfD - was about ready to call ESSAY/OR/POVFORK/etc. HOWEVER, in my BEFORE I see multiple sources referring to 1914-45 (and various other time periods) as a European Civil War. There are whole books - [7][8] (Cambridge University Press was willing to have a title of this), book chapters - [9][10], coverage elsewhere - [11][12][13]. So - it seems that as a concept this exists and is notable. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (after ec), it seems to be a common enough academic conception to treat the first half of the 20th century, or an even longer period, as a continuous European civil war. Books on the subject include Fire and Blood: The European Civil War 1914-1945, Civil War in Europe, 1905–1949, The European Civil War: The First Twenty Years, 1917-1936, and it is discussed in depth in The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914-1945 (Chapter 19) and The International Context of the Spanish Civil War (Chapter 1). The nominator argues that the topic is pointless, but pointless has never been a criterion for deletion here, and however pointless, it is certainly notable so meets WP:GNG. Everything else comes under WP:NOTCLEANUP. SpinningSpark 15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To qualify, an article on a WP:NEOLOGISM must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. I think that the discussion that forms Chapter 19 of The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914-1945 qualifies. Agree with the nominator that "the article has many problems, aside from being a pointless topic, the article is written very poorly and is biased towards the 'supporting case'" but none of this is grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This neologism is found in enough reliable sources (as per Spinningspark's vote) to be considered notable. ToThAc (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not like the term and reject the historical analysis on which it is based. However we have it, and so need this article. However, the content should be primarily historiographic not historical. In other words anyone who tries expanding this to provide a lot of detail of the various wars needs to be firmly told not to. Ideally there should be a tag for this, but it would probably need to be a specially written one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. --Doncram (talk) 17:51, 27 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Abdmoneim[edit]

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

I removed a CSD tag because I don't think it is an obvious hoax. But the tagger said this:

"Fake links and hoax, doesn’t meet the requirements"

I do not know Arabic at all, so I have no way of confirming this statement. But her name is not listed on Miss Egypt, even though the article said she won it. funplussmart (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this person does appear to exist, but the article appears to contain false information with fake references (possibly to promote her YouTube channel?) funplussmart (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (see below) - Sources are legit, and it's definitely not a hoax. The article has many issues, including WP:PROMOTION. But this is grounds for improvement, not deletion. I'll try to rewrite some of it tomorrow. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am only repeating what EgyptianTyphoon's concerns were. He thinks it should be deleted, so I'm waiting for him to say something about this. funplussmart (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. Didn't say that you thought it should be deleted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~If he fails to explain why he thinks it should be deleted, we'll Speedy Keep this AfD.~~ (He did) funplussmart (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I didn’t know how to respond here, will she exists but the article should be deleted cause she’s promotiong herself and she’s not notable I’m arabic and she’s using some kind of fake news website saying she won Miss Egypt but she didn’t and she’s nothing but a blogger and she’s promoting herself thru wikipedia, fake fame to be precise, check out miss egypt wikipedia, she’s not included so delete it as soon as you notice this.

@Fitzcarmalan:, what do you have to say about this? And @EgyptianTyphoon:, you can sign your comments using 4 ~s. funplussmart (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I have to say is: either 1) delete, ~~or 2) rename to Miss Eco Egypt 2018 and keep as a redirect.~~

It doesn't say that "she won Miss Egypt" in the article; it says that she won the "People's Choice" and "Miss Popularity" awards at the Miss Eco Egypt ceremony (not to be confused with Miss Egypt, a different pageant to which this one is erroneously piped). This Youm7 article confirms that first bit. But EgyptianTyphoon is absolutely right in saying that she is not notable enough for a standalone article. Not only is she not the winning contestant among 16 finalists, but the fact that Miss Eco Egypt itself is currently a red link is enough to sink this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Making it clear that I am convinced that this should be deleted. funplussmart (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth material from reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 31 October 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 Patriot Prayer. Sandstein 12:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March[edit]

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

Almost no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE at all. Not notable, without any impact, no WP:GEOSCOPE, no WP:SUSTAINED, nothing. wumbolo ^^^ 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (I should note, I created this article and collected some sources here: Talk:Peaceful_Vancouver_Freedom_March). This article should be expanded, not deleted. No, this was not a well-attended demonstration, but the event received significant coverage, as have some other Patriot Prayer protests in the Pacific Northwest. To be honest, I wish Wumbolo would quit nominating so many clearly notable articles for deletion. For example, nominating Women's March on Portland for deletion and adding a notability tag to Impeachment March, a good article. This is a strain on the community. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Small event that received local coverage but does not show notability. Could certainly be merged to Patriot Prayer that already has a "Portland rallies" section with other of this provocateur's sparsely attended, lightly covered, and hardly individually notable events. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patriot Prayer. With reference to WP:NEVENT, this event did not have lasting effects, significant impact, or coverage beyond a short news cycle. That template at the bottom of the article seems to indicate that this article is part of an effort to build out Patriot Prayer articles in Wikipedia, but following the guidelines means no standalone article for this event. Redirecting to Patriot Prayer, where the event is already discussed, is a sensible alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patriot Prayer. Capitals00 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patriot Prayer, as per above 3 editors. The nom's points are cogent, but no harm in redirecting to an article which contains info on this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 31 October 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. Clear consensus that there is both sufficient referencing and scope for the article to be retained (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Portland[edit]

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

Zero long-term impact. Low participation. Fails WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:SUSTAINED. The Seattle article was kept after an AfD because a lot of people participated in the Seattle one. wumbolo ^^^ 10:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Of course, keep this article about one of the largest public protests in Oregon's history, per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historically notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle for a similar AfD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Existing sourcing is adequate to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically important march for city of Portland. Unclear how a statement like "zero long-term impact" can be made with any credibility, or that 100,000 participants is considered "low attendance." Netherzone (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "easily one of the largest marches ever in Portland" per the Portland Police Bureau. 24 references. Easy decision. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it already includes enough references to establish notability. Aoba47 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of GameCube games with alternate display modes[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Just a list of games and what display size they are compatible with Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As gaming has moved from CRTs to flat screens, support for HD quality on modern displays is an important characteristic. It was usually mentioned in contemporary game reviews as a positive, so sources can be found. Also, several new devices were developed over the past year for the purpose of GameCube 480p output. The article gets over 100 views per day and there is no alternative on the internet for this information. TarkusAB^talk 14:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how this violates NOTCATALOG? The policy states: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." Here are sources to demonstrate notability of GameCube progressive scan: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] In all honesty, I understand where the rationale to delete is coming from but I've spent a lot of time improving the page, find it very useful, and would be really disappointed to see it go. TarkusAB^talk 23:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "no alternative on the internet for this information" is not a valid argument for keeping it, and this info would have been removed if it were apart of the main list of Gamecube games page for being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At the very least, each individual game should be sourced, which is not the case currently. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of policy, see especially the "Instruction manuals" discussion in WP:NOTMANUAL. There are plenty of places that can host a page of information on the internet. WP:NOTMANUAL suggests such information may be welcome at Wikibooks. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TarkusAB. In searching for reviews of GC games I've noticed they typically say what display modes are supported. JOE BRO 64 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That content, if important, can be added to the individual games' article, not in a list. Ajf773 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary breakdown by a non-defining characteristic of a video game, largely unsourced to boot. So I also think WP:NOTCATALOG applies. We also don't have List of single-player GameCube games, List of GameCube games rated M or List of GameCube games with GameCube – Game Boy Advance link cable functionality. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator is correct. WP is not a catalogue. This is an overly technical breakdown. Information can be added per game if sourced, or added to the Gamecube article in general. We don't need a list.The information is interesting, but of interest to a very niche audience. I recommend saving this article, and reposting it on another wiki, such as a Nintendo or Gamecube themed fan wikia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baphomet Engine[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a band that apparently doesn't exist anymore (dead link to their homepage). There's no article in Portuguese Wikipedia as well. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 09:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The project is still active, they've just changed the address of their website [21]. There's also a Bandcamp page. But all the releases are either on Bandcamp or tiny non-notable labels specialising in psychedelic trance records. I suspect this is a promotional page for an outfit involved in a very small underground scene in Brazil dedicated to this type of music, and the chances of any mainstream coverage, in English or in Portuguese, is nil... I couldn't find any. Richard3120 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on news, google showing meagre fair. Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Laem Chabang#Sports. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laem Chabang municipal Stadium[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub for more than 2 years. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support to delete it. 124.120.38.245 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Speedy Keep" or "Procedural close". Nomination provides no rationale for deletion. It is irrelevant that the article has not been edited recently. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only news coverage I could identify is this news piece mentioning how the club was renovating the stadium in 2013. I don't think it satisfies the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, would you consider changing your !vote, given my rationale that the subject fails the GNG? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laem Chabang#Sports. There is local coverage to support a mention in a broader article e.g. 1.--Pontificalibus 08:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the section on Laem Chabang as per Pontificalibus. Not enough standalone notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 31 October 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 12:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjari (Indian singer)[edit]

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

Contains several broken references. Those that do work are mostly Indian local news, and these that aren't Indian local news are dubious sources such as her own website and Youtube. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two references in Times of india which is big. Seems to be poplar in southern part of India. But yes, content needs to be trimmed and material which has not been cited should be removed. Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there's also a thehindu ref in the article, just about enough. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 30 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Pictures[edit]

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

Not notable independently and notability can not be inherited. Most of the films, with which this company is associated, are yet to be announced. News coverage is mostly about the launch of the company or is incidental. Not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH now. Hitro talk 08:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect the page to its parent company Eros International instead of deleting it. This company is a going to be notable company. After announcing some more movies' release dates the page can be restored. User:AnkurWiki (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant media coverage such as here and seems to be an emerging big player in cinema and web/tv production, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe WP:SPECULATION deals with these cases. Hitro talk 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Your reference from Television Post fails as a reliable source. Seems more like a blog except it doesn't even have the name of the person behind it listed. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 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 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Discovery Institute. Merge must be done selectively. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity[edit]

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

Defunct organisation. In checking the sources there is nothing to show sufficient notability - they sponsored a couple of events, but didn't get much in the way of coverage. Bilby (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organisation doesn't appear to have any news coverage since 2006, and then only one from a blog post. There seems to have been some minor coverage by sympathetic sources, many of them blogs, dating from around this time but the organisation seems to be gone. Mramoeba (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Discovery Institute. I don't think there's enough material on this organization for an article to stand on its own, but on the whole it's better that we keep track of who these people are. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Discovery Institute. Nothing in the existing article establishes notability (it seems to all be from the organization, general creationism, or mentions of things that the organization sponsored), and a search didn't turn up anything that would constitute extensive coverage independent of the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Discovery Institute, leaving a redirect. Should some curious source checker come looking, it will be useful to have preserved some historical context. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:37, 24 October 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) ∯WBG^converse 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (voltage)[edit]

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

Half of the stuff is unsourced and another quarter unreliably sourced. The article fails WP:LISTN.Synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBG^converse 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Half of the stuff is unsourced" - well, no. There are 36 referenced entries and only 6 that are not. One of those is "planck voltage - which is the subject of an article to which we link - it's a physical constant, not something that needs to be referenced. Another is a tautology - the voltage of 15kV railway electrics is...by definition...15kV, and again we link to the article. That leaves just four missing references. Pretty good by Wikipedia standards. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where the 600 V figure for the electric eel came from, but it's probably close to accurate (e.g., this paper mentions large eels generating EMFs around 500 V). 3.3-volt CMOS is a standard thing discussed at, e.g., logic family. The breakdown voltage for an electric arc is only approximately linear with gap width, but we could fix that entry up easily enough. Millivolt values for K-type thermocouples at ambient temperatures look about right. So, yeah, sourcing isn't a real issue here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these "orders of magnitude" pages are a bit pointless, but this voltage one gives a real feel for what the range of orders mean in the real world. The argument if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one seems to be admitting that reliable sources can be found, but tries to discount them because Wikipedia is not a textbook. NOTTEXTBOOK does not say that. It says that articles should not be written like a "how-to". This page is far from a how-to. It doesn't tell the reader how to do anything. WP:RS, under WP:SOURCETYPES, list textbooks under "usually the most reliable sources". Absolutely text books add to the notability of this page. So here's a textbook giving such a list and I'm tempted to point the nominator at another textbook for the proper use of grammar. SpinningSpark 23:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state any about the unreliability of textbooks. The point is that Irwing's book donates just a single line to the entire thing, that is featured as a diagram and that line emphasises on the vastness of the magnitude.Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an exception either that voltage is some special physical quantity that can have such extreme range. The vastness is applicable for all most all physical quantities. At the end of the day, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is absent. ∯WBG^converse 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the broader theme can be created and all of these category articles merged/redirected into but that will have it's own issues. ∯WBG^converse 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"this voltage one gives a real feel for what the range of orders mean in the real world". That's blatant WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm tempted to point the nominator at another textbook for the proper use of grammar." I'm tempted to point you towards WP:CIVILITY. Narky Blert (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As indicated above, sourcing isn't a problem. Reliable sources include listings of voltages for disparate things, so we're not doing anything conceptually novel by assembling such a list ourselves. We can keep the list from growing too outsized or indiscriminate by following an inclusion criterion of the "all items must be blue-linked" form. I don't see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK being a real concern here, either. This article is not written as textbookish prose, "with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK doesn't apply just because a thing exists in some textbooks; that would rule out our articles including figures and bibliographies, after all.) So, weighing the concerns, I can't see anything that requires deletion, just ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last argument is a strawman. And, sourcing per LISTN is indeed a problem. Please provide multiple examples of sources that discuss such a list, significantly.∯WBG^converse 19:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it a strawman if you like; I honestly think it's a valid comparison, albeit slightly more extreme than the case currently under discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable and mentions a lot of items, the majority of which are referenced. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The information is useful and generally well sourced and easily meets the requirements of WP:LISTN, 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." There is nothing in LISTN that says textbooks don't count, and I expect there are similar tables in other encyclopedias. The stuff that isn't referenced is hardly controversial and can be challenged if need be. At worst the content could be merged back into the Volt article.--agr (talk) 20:07, 2 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 Viscosity. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (viscosity)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:LISTN.Synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBG^converse 06:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for an editor's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article seems helpful to a student trying to get a grasp of the topic. Various online sources certainly list things from very low to very high viscosity, and it is helpful to learn that seeming solids can even be characterized in this way. Learning that the viscosity of substance X is some number is not as informative as seeing how that number compares to water, oil or putty. Edison (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL.Additionally, allmost all sources, (I have read), do only provide a table about the viscosity of common substances, sorted in an ascending/descending order rather than trying their hands at defining the range of values of viscosity, in real life.The one over here, might comprise of same elements but is entirely on a different theme.Such lists can be easily accommodated at Viscosity. ∯WBG^converse 05:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (voltage). SpinningSpark 23:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of viscosity (not range of voltage) in a significant manner.∯WBG^converse 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable as a lot of the items mentioned in the article are familiar. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the chart in viscosity is already sufficient. --Steve (talk) 19:21, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Europan[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable competition, and the article is very promotional. "Europan" is the adjective for Europa, so I suggest redirecting there after deleting. Off-topic: Europan colonization should be a redirect to Colonization of Europa; also, European colonization and Colonization of Europe should probably redirect to the same article, but I could be mistaken. wumbolo ^^^ 21:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing a lot of evidence of WP:BEFORE here. Just on book sources there is Global Gentrification which, although Europan is tangential to the subject of the book, or even the chapter, discusses it over several pages. Housing + Single-Family Housing discusses several Europan projects. Europan 6 is a book about the Dutch entries, and I think is independent of the Europan organisers, Likewuse Europan 8 in Nederland. And here's a news article. There's probably a lot more, but I don't think I really need to look any further. SpinningSpark 16:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears that the vast majority of the sourcing is mere mentions, or are primary sources (at least 2 of the above references are works put out by Europan --- Europan 6 and Europan 8). However the Global Gentrifications and the Archinect article are a good start. In fact, Archinect seems to discuss each of the individual competitions in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 31 October 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 and move back to Murray Menkes. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Menkes Developments[edit]

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

This page was about a property developer who appeared to me to just scrape by on notability. It's now been turned into a page that is supposedly about the company, though in fact much of it is about Menkes and his grandson. It doesn't meet our much stricter notability requirements for companies. I see plenty of conflict-of-interest editing, but no COI or paid editor disclosure, so it may also be a WP:TOU violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but return to being a page about the person not the company. Page has an interesting history. It started as a Draft titled for company but I found that the founder was covered in lengthy obits by several leading Canadian newspapers, the Canadian equivalent akin to getting a New York Times Obit for a Canadian. I see efforts have been made to inject company info back in. I propose it be moved back to the founder's name and the company name become a redirect to the founder's name. A little pruning is in order to remove promotion. I see no reason to destroy a valid topic and page when normal editing can fix it. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as per Legacypac Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simonm223, Legacypac, could you please clarify whether you are advocating keeping the page on Menkes Developments or not – a "keep" !vote makes it look as if you are. If what you are suggesting is "move back to original title, restore original content and create a redirect from Menkes Developments", that isn't really a "keep" as usually understood. (is it?) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the move, restore and redirect scenario would have my support as a better option than deletion. But while we're here, let's establish proper consensus on the notability of the company. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in don't delete, fix by editing as outlined. The WP:NCORP standards are so impossibly high I would not try to do a page on the company. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to an article on the founder Still Legacypac's justification but clarifying my position. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:27, 23 October 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 Marvel Comics characters: K. MBisanz ^talk 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamuu[edit]

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

Characters do not meet WP:GNG. This page is linked in the bodies of two articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: K or Homo mermanus. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable within the fiction, and certainly not notable outside of it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straightforward failure of GNG and NCOMICS. No reliable secondary sources that are not part of routine attempts to cover everything. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K - no standalone notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. WP:G7 by RHaworth; if this is re-created it can be re-nominated. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLUM: A Life in Baseball[edit]

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

No evidence that this upcoming documentary is in any way notable, I couldn't find reliable independent sources about it (a listing at IMDb is not a source counting towards notability). Fram (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything to show that this film is notable - it may receive coverage once it releases, but it's not notable in the here and now. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:29, 24 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wavestone[edit]

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

No independent references and no claim of notability in the article. I don't see enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH even considering references to Solucom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some citations for notability, but they don't really fit in the stub as it exists now. Wavestone is listed on the Forbes list of the best management consulting firms for 2018. It is listed third on the Glassdoor list of best companies to work for in France for 2018. It hit over 350 million EUR in annual revenue, and continues to grow in revenue and headcount. Obviously, more of the coverage of the firm is in French. More content and citations could be taken from the French version of this article and from French sources. But I believe the subject is notable. Jbbdude (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based on company announcements or interviews with company sources or connected companies. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and HighKing. The issue is independent sourcing. Right now, there isn't enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —DIYeditor (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Greensboro, North Carolina)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the church is historic. The building itself is 99 years old and the congregation is even older. It is one of the oldest congregations in Greensboro and a central church in the downtown area. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for this being on the National Register of Historic Places? I didn't see it in a google search. If this is listed the article should be updated with a supporting reference. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is by no means the case that every historic building is "listed".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the Fisher Park Historic District, the whole neighborhood is listed on the national register. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable building by notable architect, I did a little sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, that certainly changes things. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:51, 23 October 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) JC7V-talk 16:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillyer Memorial Christian Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, User:DIYeditor, have you read the church's history [22] page and used search terms found there as keywords in searches? Did you consider tagging th epage for improvement?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include:

"A Story of the Women's Work at Hillyer Memorial Christian Church, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1916-1974," H.G. Jones, The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 53, no. 2, April 1976, pp. 193-214.
New surprises from Hillyer Chorus, Tonkonogy, Alwin. News & Observer;08 Dec 1998: E8. a music review of the church choir in a major daily paper, " Conductor Paul Conway eschews the standard repertory and for many years has performed music which most of us have never heard. In his 28 years with his fine chorus, he has introduced at least 44 compositions of unusual interest which are rarely, if ever, performed by any group in our area or, for that matter, anywhere. The 75-voice chorus sings with a rich, full tone - particularly impressive in the relatively small church. The tenor section is strong and is superbly balanced by the larger bass section. The sopranos are thrilling, and the altos are fine, too. Conway has done well in his training of his singers. The chamber orchestra played beautifully - the full, rich tone of the large brass was heard to advantage...."

Frankly, and irascibly, I suggest that Nom withdraw this entire group of deletions of notable, old churches, and leave them tagged for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First source yes. Second one sounds like a passing mention in a local interest story. From NCORP, and this is significant, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies is excluded. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A music review of a church choir and the work of its choir director in a major regional daily is an excellent source supporting the notability of a church. I coninue to urge Nom to withdraw these hasty nominations in a subject area wiht which he is apparently unfamiliar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of NCORP would make coverage of a Raleigh church in a Raleigh paper a purely local interest story. I think an additional source is required here. The standards for organizations (WP:NCORP) were tightened, which you may not be aware of. It is required that the topic be of relevance beyond the local area. Further, each nomination should be considered on its own, the Antioch one was patently unrepresented in available media. There is no need to wikibully here, these were poorly constructed stubs. The time spent on making 5 should've been spent on doing 1 or 2 properly. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
actually, no. When an editor is persuaded that a topic is notable,it is entirely legitimate to start an article and then step back.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me making a number of articles that would not pass AfC or might even be subject to CSD is not good editing. CSD A7 This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event[8] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. Willthacheerleader18 was new so it's understandable (these still should've gone through AfC), and you were the one who directed accusations of bad editing at me so I am replying. I would further look over articles listed on my user page as representing my work at some point in 8 years. And would revise one after a failed AfD that brought up some potential notability. Also I have corrected it a number of times, please make note of MOS:LISTGAP which is very important for accessibility reasons. Some editors use screen readers. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second this notion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the sources are readily available it's as easy for you to add them to these articles, which should be done when creating them, as it is for me to go back through each one and see if I can dig more up. The Antioch article was the worst of these but the rest are not clearly into the realm of passing GNG and NCORP as far as I can tell. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote most of these article's in 2010, when I was a high school student. I barely even remember writing them. Not that it's necessarily a valid excuse, but I was still learning about how to use Wikipedia at the time. I haven't kept track of any of these articles in years. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this church had a notable choir director, in addition to the sources I noted above. I'm sure there's more out there, and that our time is better spent improving articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per E.M.Gregory. --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable and noteworthy local building and congregation. XavierItzm (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep individual churches do not come under WP:NCORP so local and regional sources which have been provided are acceptable to pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't individual churches come under NCORP? Same as an individual company, store, restaurant, club, etc., etc. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:14, 28 October 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) 21:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church (Madison, North Carolina)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as church is historically and culturally significant to Rockingham County. The congregation was founded in 1841 and the building was built in the 1850s, including segregated seats for slaves and landowners. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not listed at this North Carolina government site. Two First Baptist Churches are listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Rockingham County, North Carolina but not in Madison or at this address. Supporting references should be added to establish notability of articles like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is by no means true that if a building is historic, it will necessarily be "listed."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep material such as News & Observer: Madison church celebrates 170 years from which page can be improved exists. WP:TROUT Nom for lazy series of nominations of old churches without proper WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Lazy? If you click the search links above, neither news or newspapers (or books or etc.) turn up anything. You have found one source, after presumably more effort than is required by BEFORE. Multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage are required. This church actually turns up very little in searches - next to nothing. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The News & Record article Madison church celebrates 170 years article is a WP:RS, and the point is that it includes material from which article can be improved, and keywords that will enable keyword searches to find additional sources. Like most of our pages, this article about an old and notable church needs a willing editor to improve it. note that the 19th century church was razed and replaced in the 1950s, but that while the present church is not architecturally interesting, material on the old building exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources as shown above passes WP:NBUILD Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roaring Gap, North Carolina. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch United Methodist Church (Roaring Gap, North Carolina)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Just a local church. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Church (Hodgkins, Illinois). —DIYeditor (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roaring Gap, North Carolina, where the photo and text would be a useful addition to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merge as nom. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per E.M.Gregory. Not separately notable, but will help to expand a thin article on the place. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 27 October 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. There is clear agreement that this DAB serves a useful purpose, well in excess of a DICDEF violation and within the wit of mankind to repair. The clean-up tag as regards DAB/Primary article is present and justified, but is not cause for deletion. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence[edit]

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

Irredeemable kluge, a morphadite mix of disambiguation and dictionary definition. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. This is definitely a bit of a mess in some ways, but it's by no means irredeemable. Until someone writes that broad-concept article, a dab page here seems pretty appropriate. I'll note however, that Equivalent redirects here, and I wonder if it should be its own (dab) page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. A broad-concept article of the sort mentioned by Deacon Vorbis above could definitely be written and the disambiguation page given here does serve readers. The nomination statement lacks a policy-based argument for deletion. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination doesn't mention any disadvantages from keeping and doesn't mention any advantages from deleting. Hyacinth (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve/tag for improvement. Not sure what the policy based rationale for deletion is given by the nominator. Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clean up, not delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 27 October 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. Misspelling, taxon exists, page moved. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyncobombyx[edit]

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

None of the sources provided support the existence of this genus and a Google search for Rhyncobombyx shows no reliable sources. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on basis that it really has a high proportion of consonants, a (wp:CONSONANTS?) nd relatedly I believe that it is a real thing. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue - it's just a misspelling of Rhynchobombyx, which exists. Closing this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Indo-European Lexicon (PIE Lexicon)[edit]

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

An extremely idiosyncratic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. Doesn’t seem notable and no third-party sources are given. Guldrelokk (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. I can find no mentions in news media, and only two references in scholarlies, both by Jouna Pyysalo, the creator of the lexicon project. Cnilep (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article's creator was not notified about this deletion discussion. I have notified them now. Cnilep (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is effectively WP:OR, it's sourced to their own website and the scholarly references are by the project's members. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 28 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bardown Hockey[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as the company itself is in the public as of high interest upon the celebs in the sector of sports as well as outside. Notability is there and can been seen via internet and sources thereof --Your Favorite Writers Writer (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not enough to allege that sources exist. You need to give explicit details, preferably with a link. SpinningSpark 11:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, irretrievably promotional. None of the refs in the article add up to notability. Ref#1 is a newspaper column that is kind of an agony aunt for companies. Bardown is being used as a case study of a run-of-the-mill company with problems. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE also spring to mind as reasons not to accept this for notability. Ref#2 is from one of the teams that the company sponsers, hence not independent. Ref#3 is on the companies own website hence does not add to notability (and there is zero text on the page). SpinningSpark 11:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even ref #1 isn't using Bardown as the case study — it's using a different company called Boddam as the case study, and Bardown's presence in the article is limited to its founder giving soundbite as one of the people the column approached to provide business advice to Boddam. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I normally support to keep the article, but i don't think that this will get through. Even in the articles there is a seperate section about an achievement done through an instagram page. I think we need to proceed with the deletion B. N .D | ✉ 08:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two of the three references here are primary sources, not reliable and independent ones for the purposes of establishing a company's notability — and even the one that's actually to a real media outlet isn't coverage about Bardown, but simply soundbites Bardown's co-founder giving business advice to another sporting goods startup. None of this sourcing passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to pass CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP, CORPDEATH and the GNG. The article creator seems to be a SPA churning out these NN promotional articles, and like several other editors, I'm thinking that he's being paid to do so. Ravenswing 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage of this company to show it's notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam masquerading as an article with little to no third-party information about the company itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Brennan (footballer, born 1983)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played at fully professional level or at full international level. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and does not appear to have played a senior match for Newcastle United, so also fails WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is going WP:SNOW and the debate is unnecessarily bad tempered. The Keep votes to date correctly note that the article is well sourced, and while this was a short lived project it may well have been the first iteration of a mobile phone maker's app store, hence its inclusion in several books on the business of mobile telecomms. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Nokia[edit]

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

A Nokia promotional program that closed in 2004. The program previously offered special offers to loyal customers/members. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Loyalty program which defines Club Nokia. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: after reading the cited sources, I’m adding that this article fails GNG despite the number of cited sources which are misleading because they focus on Nokia the company or the web portal technology, and give only passing mention to Club Nokia, the loyalty programme itself. Notability is not inherited. Passing mention is not substantial enough to meet notability standards, and only a few of the cited sources qualify as independent secondary RS wherein there is passing mention, others include blogs, books about internet technology, articles about the competition between mobile carriers, etc. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the above comment, Only a few of the cited sources qualify as indepedent secondary RS - this is patently incorrect, sources are from The Register, The Economist, BBC News, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, ZDNet and several books published by reputable publishers such as Wiley. Sure there is a blog by Insead knowledge but this is a reliable source as it is written by a reputable expert. Some primary sources are present but this is ok as they merely provide some supporting information and the article does not rely on these solely (they are also mostly archived versions of the original sources since they no longer exist, including the original EMI press realease). For notability purposes, the subject does not have to be the main focus of the source. However, I agree some sources don't have a great depth of coverage, but there are references provided where Club Nokia is clearly the main focus (on just two pages of the book authored by Wallin I count over 20 mentions of the term "Club Nokia"), the Wall Street reference has "Club Nokia" in its title, multiple references and discussion of "Club Nokia" on at least three pages of the book authored by Doz, and all sources discuss contract/consumer/economic issues in the context of the Club Nokia enterprise. Overall, there are a large number of demonstrably reliable sources supporting the information provided in this article. In all cases at AfD the state of the sources in an article is irrelevant, as it's the availability of reliable sources that matters - in this case numberous reliable sources are already provided in the article, and many more are available clearly satisfying notability of this service formally used by millions of people.Polyamorph (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, what's your justification of nominating this for deletion? --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPROMOTION ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not see how this is 'promotion'. Club Nokia was both a loyalty programme AND software portal that closed c. 2004. This is nothing about promotion. Not to mention it is notable because of the deal with EMI (a then-huge record label) and the resulting unease with mobile carriers. --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see any logical rationale for deletion, article has a number of sources, looks like it passes WP:GNG to me. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Customer loyalty rewards are pure promotion - the article even states "...provided special offers as well as paid-for ringtones, ...." The promotion ran its course and now it's no longer available - that's how promotions work. The article also states For the venue formerly known as Club Nokia, see The Novo by Microsoft. I'm not sure what the latter is about. So far, the arguments to keep are not convincing. I checked the cited sources - the 1st barely has a full paragraph about the Club Nokia promo, the second is its own archived website, the 3rd is a paragraph or 2 in an entire book. Govvy, as a reviewer, what RS convinced you it passes GNG? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the customer loyalty is just one part of it - Club Nokia was also a media portal for e.g. downloads. Now that part surely can't be about promotion. --KaukoHaapavesi (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG, was more than just a loyalty programme, the EMI deal is covered by a guardian article cited in the article. There are reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The EMI deal was signed with Nokia, not Club Nokia. The first sentence of the lead describes what Club Nokia was, so anything beyond that conflates Nokia the company with Club Nokia, a loyalty programme. If anything, it might be worthy of brief mention in the Nokia article because it clearly fails GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Nokia was the website by which said media was purchased, and it all caused a bit of a stir back in the day as other cellphone operators complained they were threatening their market, forcing them to cease sales. It does not clearly fail GNG, there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss "club Nokia" as a notable entity. This article is not well written, but that does not make it a candidate for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the link to the RS, please. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty already linked, read them. Polyamorph (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally (via search engine): Club Nokia Spawned a new industry for the provision of mobile content , Wall street article on Club Nokia, BBC article discussing the "new" features available via Club Nokia. RS are there, if you look. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's pretty significant in the history of mobile-internet consumer purchasing, could do with a much nicer article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snarky - I've read the sources, and this cited source states: EMI Music Publishing and Nokia, the world's leading mobile telephone manufacturer, have signed an agreement for EMI Music Publishing's catalogue to be used for custom downloadable ring tones. And this one states, (my bold for emphasis): They also worry that with Club Nokia, its loyalty programme, Nokia is encroaching on the operators' own turf, just as Microsoft was wont to do. It's about Nokia, not Club Nokia which is nothing more than a conduit programme instituted by Nokia to promote their business. There are no independent RS that warrant Club Nokia being an independent article as it is a loyalty programme, and no matter how much we want RS to support it as a standalone, it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. I've presented my argument - done here. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no valid justification for deletion, the NOTPROMOTION argument does not hold - this article isn't promoting anything - the website doesn't even exist anymore. Actually Tesco Clubcard is a loyalty programme, would you suggest we delete that page? But in any case, far more than a loyalty programme (which NOTPROMOTION doesn't cover anyway), this is a website that helped pioneer mobile internet consumer purchasing, something which is taken for granted now. When you ask for sources and people (me in this case) take the time to provide them here (above), then please have the courtesy to read them.. Polyamorph (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty program defines Club Nokia and probably the Tesco Clubcard but I'm not going to spend any more time arguing this case based on the unconvincing arguments that have been put forth. The Tesco Clubcard article has OR and DUE issues which needs to be cleaned-up but that has nothing to do with this AfD. What I do know is that neither passing mention nor a paragraph in a book or article satisfy GNG. The WSJ article you cited above clearly states (again, my bold underline): Eager to capitalize on its growing share of the mobile-handset market, Nokia Corp. is seeking to boost the profile of Club Nokia, its collection of services for those who own its phones. But the effort could put the company at odds with the sector's biggest operators. Notability is not inherited, and for an article to meet the basic standards for inclusion requires multiple independent RS with substantial mention and I have not seen that yet. Whoever closes this AfD will be the one to determine consensus based on how convincing the arguments are in support of our PAGs. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is wikipedia should not have articles on Loyalty programs? Where is the policy justification for that? There are plenty of non-trivial mentions of Club Nokia in the sources, it satisfies WP:GNG since "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". You don't like the article, which is fine, and it could do with expansion / cleanup. But that's no justification for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No valid policy based rationale for deletion has been provided by the nominator. WP:NOTPROMOTION does not apply, this article isn't promotional, we don't delete articles on promotional products on the basis of WP:NOTPROMOTION, the nominator appears confused in this regard. Many reliable sources that discuss this website / scheme (including some with "Club Nokia" specifically mentioned in their titles, countering arguments made here that the sources give trivial mentions only) are provided in the article, further sources have been provided in this AfD which demonstrate sufficient independent notability from the parent company. Polyamorph (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to include some of the sources found during this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable and doesn't seem to be a promotional article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Psalms in the Key of Z". Retrieved 2018-10-15.

[2] "Unbelievable Holy Grail Footage of the Shaggs from 1972 Found". Retrieved 2018-10-15.

[3] "The Shaggs Reunion Concert was Unsettling, Beautiful, Eerie, and Will Probably Never Happen Again Found". Retrieved 2018-10-15.

[4] Harper, Adam (2014). Lo-Fi Aesthetics in Popular Music Discourse (PDF). Wadham College. p. 48. Retrieved March 10, 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

v t e Orders of magnitude
Quantity	Acceleration Angular momentum Area Bit rate Charge Computing Current Data Density Energy / Energy density Entropy Force Frequency Illuminance Length Luminance Magnetic field Mass Molarity Numbers Power Pressure Probability Radiation Sound pressure Specific heat capacity Speed Temperature Torque Time Voltage Volume
See also	Back-of-the-envelope calculation Best-selling electronic devices Fermi problem Powers of 10 and decades 10th 100th 1000000th Metric (SI) prefix Macroscopic scale Microscopic scale
Related	Astronomical system of units Earth's location in the Universe Cosmic View (1957 book) To the Moon and Beyond (1964 film) Cosmic Zoom (1968 film) Powers of Ten (1968 and 1977 films) Cosmic Voyage (1996 documentary) The Scale of the Universe (2010) Cosmic Eye (2012)
Category

v t e Orders of magnitude
Quantity	Acceleration Angular momentum Area Bit rate Charge Computing Current Data Density Energy / Energy density Entropy Force Frequency Illuminance Length Luminance Magnetic field Mass Molarity Numbers Power Pressure Probability Radiation Sound pressure Specific heat capacity Speed Temperature Torque Time Voltage Volume
See also	Back-of-the-envelope calculation Best-selling electronic devices Fermi problem Powers of 10 and decades 10th 100th 1000000th Metric (SI) prefix Macroscopic scale Microscopic scale
Related	Astronomical system of units Earth's location in the Universe Cosmic View (1957 book) To the Moon and Beyond (1964 film) Cosmic Zoom (1968 film) Powers of Ten (1968 and 1977 films) Cosmic Voyage (1996 documentary) The Scale of the Universe (2010) Cosmic Eye (2012)
Category