Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Edwards[edit]

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

Despite 72 refs, none appear to be both independent and reliable. I can see nothing here which conveys notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of his work, for example for "Humble and Kind" [1], "It Ain’t My Fault" [2], "Drunk on a Plane" [3], and his videos have won many major Country Music awards [4][5][6][7][8]. Should pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Hzh (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough sources to show notability. It needs quite a bit of cleanup, which I started. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple major award winner as director of several videos of the year. Clearly a major director in the music video industry. I think sometimes we go very easy on performers, and are extremely picky when it comes to the people who direct, rather than perform. He will never be as famous as Garth Brooks, but as a video director he is very much so. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced this meets notability guidelines, but don't plan to !vote. Regarding "we go very easy on performers" - there is an important distinction: performers are inherently public figures, and get secondary coverage as a result. Producers are not inherently public figures and often do not get any coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear; I wasn't suggesting we should be lenient on less public figures and expect less in the way of notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. There's always the risk of judging people in the music industry differently because they get written about more, but I don't think that's the case here. /Julle (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holsten Pils[edit]

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

This doesn't need a stand-alone page; all the content can be integrated into Holsten Brewery and the page can be replaced with a redirect. Ich (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human Face Fish[edit]

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

This article was merged into Koi in 2011, but discussion of the topic was removed from that article the following year. The redirect was nominated at RfD last month (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 9#Human face fish), but the discussion was closed as no consensus. During the RfD Thryduulf argued that the article ought to be restored and nominated at AfD, which, given that nobody in the RfD discussion argued for the redirect to be kept, now seems to be most appropriate solution.

As I argued at RfD, the topic "amounts to an individual fish with a vaguely human-looking face that received some minor news coverage some years ago" (coverage of the sort described in the final sentence of WP:ROUTINE), and is not the only such fish to have been the subject of news coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral regarding the content, I just feel it is important that deletion of article content that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria take place an appropriate venue. AfD is such a venue, RfD is not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless trivia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, ephemeral. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely a blip in the news, even at the time. Current references on the article are dead. Trying to find more turns up almost nothing about this fish, just mainly youtube videos. There's more news about a shark being talked about as having a human face. This hardly seems a remarkable thing, nor one that drew much attention even at the time it happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves and Villains[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence of this band meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Also, per this discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on Victory Records plus some reasonable coverage ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), just about satisfies WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage such as Paste magazine, Allmusic, the aquarian and others, also has two albums released on a notable label, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Michig (thanks!). I'm not certain they are good secondary sources, but they appear to be, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Given the sensitivities concerned, the so-far unanimous vote to delete, and the consensus that this article may be already in breach of the BLP policy, it seems prudent to close this and delete the article immediately. — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Katelyn Davis[edit]

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

Classic WP:BIO1E with horrendous sourcing (dailymail, youtube etc) and BLP issues (charges of sexual abuse etc).

No reliably-sourced indication that the sad event had greater societal ramifications (such as change in some law, or practice) that would make it notable enough and amenable to encyclopedic coverage. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being the only socially responsible action possible. The person did not in any way meet notability guidelines, was under 13 years old (noting the presumption of privacy provided by COPPA, which specifically addresses online use of such information, and thus might fail under US law. No continuing coverage either. BLP1E also applies. Not even noting the fact that such "reportage" is barred by many countries, including the EU. Collect (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, a minor child, BLP violations regarding the family, don't want to encourage copycats, potential legal issues, and need I go on? Just let this poor soul rest without having all the worst parts of her life memorialized here as though that's all she was.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main reason is the soft sourcing, not concerns about copycats etc. Any subject can be covered on Wikipedia per WP:NOTCENSORED, but this article has always struggled to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. The case became notable because Davis livestreamed the suicide, but this in itself does not warrant an entire article. The claim by Collect that "such reportage is barred by many countries, including the EU" is dubious because British newspapers reported the incident: Mirror Mail Sun. Invoking COPPA is also dubious because the US news media is not stupid and would have checked this before reporting on the case. There is no obvious COPPA violation in reporting the suicide according to reliable news coverage, eg here in The Independent, which is a good British newspaper regularly used as a source on Wikipedia. There has been a lot of armchair lawyering over this, but the WP:GNG issue from the overall sourcing is the real problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ianmacm: the sources do not satisfactorily assert notability, and the fact that more reliable sources have not taken up the story even though they (certainly legally, probably ethically) could, should speak volumes. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two reasons: 1) A simple retitling does not absolve the article of WP:BLP1E problems, and there's evident reason that this person was particularly notable outside of a few minor news articles about her suicide. 2) The sourcing is really dreadful. Once all of the crap sources are removed, there's not enough to hang an article on. --Jayron 32 11:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Hisatsumi[edit]

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

Subject was speedy deleted in 2017. Not much more notable now. Having a Reuters source looks good, but it reads very promotional, and at the bottom we find "This content is produced independently of Reuters Editorial News." So nothing that contributes to WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. No good sources. Devlindetails (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. No corresponding jawiki article. Searches of Japanese sources under "久積篤史" find lots of press releases, but not significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG. No other notability criteria seem to apply. Article seems very much like work for hire. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. Sandstein 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo. Part of St. Xavier's College, Kolkata (see: here) with insufficient notability for a separate article The Banner talk 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with St. Xavier's College, Kolkata - not notable on its own, but may be worth mentioning in the aforementioned article as a section. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Merge [was "Keep", tentatively, but "Merge" might possibly be okay instead.] Certainly not "Delete" outright. The article seems to describe a significant, separate campus, but it is not immediately easy to see if these are as distinct as state schools in different U.S. locations, such as, say, Cal State San Bernardino vs. Cal State Fullerton. One of the Hindu Times articles states that it is awarding masters degrees. Any school from secondary on up, definitely any distinct university/college granting degrees, is Wikipedia-notable. It would be very relevant to confirm whether the degrees awarded state "St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur" (as opposed to "St. Xavier's College" or "St. Xavier's College, Kolkata". Also, FYI, per this Google maps search, Raghabpur is 21 kilometers (48 minutes by quickest route) from Kolkata, both within the state of West Bengal. --Doncram (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC) revised to Merge --08:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just removed a web forum used as a source, and a one-line event announcement used for the claim that they are bringing higher education seminars to the area. Another inflated Jesuit article concoctions by the COI article author Jzsj. What is left are basic mentions. Might be notable in a few years, but as it just opened three years ago, let's wait and see.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why not at least Merge or Redirect. It is clearly associated/part of the St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. ThatMontrealIP suggests it may be notable in their view in a few years, so it is a Redirect with possibilities for conversion back to an article. No reason to outright delete. --Doncram (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly vote delete rather than merge on these JZsj articles because the articles only exist because of very pervasive COI and are almost always created out of a concoction of minor mentions and weak or irrelevant sources. I figure that if the places really are notable, someone without a COI would have created them. I have gone through so many of his concoctions that I'm fed up with keeping and fixing them. It's my version of TNT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment St. Xavier's College, Kolkata was started in 1860 and has a great history of over 158 years and is affiliated to the University of Calcutta as per AFFILIATED COLLEGES UNDER THE UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA .While the St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur is affiliated to the St. Xavier's University, Kolkata .Hence do not a think merge is appropriate as they are affiliated to different Universities.
St Xavier's College Raghabpur campus to come up with hostels Millennium Post
Xavier’s University chalks out extension and development plan for 2025 The Times of India.
Xavier's success story in Raghabpur Telegraph

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- See the link given in de nomination: St. Xavier's College, Kolkata has started a rural campus at Raghapur. The Banner talk 22:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's College, Kolkata have started a rural campus but they are affiliated to different Universities through the management is the same.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those sources do not increase my appreciation. They tend to make me think this is NOT a different school, i.e. it is NOT offering degrees specific to itself. That would be impossible in fact; one source mentions there being 126 students. This is just like opening another building in the main campus, but sited far away, which holds some classes. I get the impression you could take a combination of classes from any branch, and you will get a St. Xavier's College degree. There is no mention of any distinct requirements for a degree from this place. For U.S.-based colleges, we don't care if they offer a course on-line or a course at a different-than-usual location, like at a private company which wants its employees to more conveniently get MBAs. So, I reaffirm my !vote above to Merge rather than Keep. --Doncram (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's College, Kolkata students get degrees from the University of Calcutta to which is it is affiliated ,historically colleges do not have degree issuing authority in India ,it is issued in the University's name .It does not issue its own degrees. While St. Xavier's College, Raghabpur students get there degree from St. Xavier's University, Kolkata.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above to St. Xavier's College, Kolkata or to St. Xavier's University, Kolkata. the Times of India article favors the University, while the Telegraph article favors the College: "Many of the students studying on the Raghabpur campus, 75 per cent of whom are women, would perhaps not have had college education if they did not have a campus close to their village," said Father Felix Raj, the principal of St. Xavier's College, Calcutta.The Raghabpur campus, which is an outcome of the "College to Village, Village to College" project, known as PRAYAS, initiated by Felix Raj in 2006, has 126 students now and offers three courses - BCom (honours), Bengali (honours) and BA (general). The medium of instruction is Bengali. The syllabus is the same as that of the Calcutta campus. Teachers from the Calcutta campus act as visiting faculty." Syllabus is the same? That sounds like they are under the same organization. Whatever article it merges to should have coverage about its expansion plans for multiple campuses/schools/colleges/universities AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and no other delete !votes (non-admin closure). MarginalCost (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kangan Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable school system in Australia, possibly the target of UPE. Prior to this I rewrote the article so as to not make it look like a spam piece, using sources I found off of Google News (granted not the highest quality of sources but they were pretty much the only usable ones I could find with the search I did ("Kangan Institute")). Earlier today, an IP removed those sources claiming that the sources I used are evidently about a different Kangan Institute. As I don't 100% believe this claim, have no desire to get into an edit war, and am highly sceptical these users would even respond to the results of any dispute resolution methods (again, there seems to be some UPE going on here) I am calling their bluff and sending it to AfD, on the grounds that if the sources I found are not about Kangan Institute then there aren't enough suitable third-party references for there to be an article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running and well-known education provider in this part of the world (and not a "school system" - it's the Australian equivalent of what would be a community college in the US). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've just given the article a quick rewrite from scratch because it was a dreadful article on a notable institution, so nothing in the present article is the same as when the nomination was made. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: basically every other TAFE institution in Australia has had articles for years, as they've been understood to have inherent notability. This would set a nasty precedent for our coverage of Australian higher education. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The RfC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in February of last year concluded that notability is not intrinsic for schools. There needs to be sources to prove notability. That said, you've done a much better job than I did cleaning this up, and I commend you for it. Thank you. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! To be clear though: that was an RfC on secondary schools. This is a higher education institution equivalent to community colleges in the United States. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, consider the AfD withdrawn. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadiy Golubovich[edit]

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

Can find nothing beyond mentions-in-passing either online or in the refs in the article itself. Seems to have been one of team of many producers on a number of films. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't discover significant coverage for the subject. Some sources mentions him but they are passing mentions. Lorstaking (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs in the article are more than sufficient. Szzuk (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, if that is the case, could you please advise which two cited sources would count most towards WP:GNG? Edwardx (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here, may require closing as no consensus if this relist doesn't do the trick.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article needs some structural work but given the amount of work he's done in film productions, I think he may pass WP:GNG. Unless each source can be analyzed heavily and proven to me that they aren't sufficient for GNG, my vote will remain as is. I checked and double checked, and about half of the sources count towards GNG while the others are just more local/possibly paid publications (overall, sourcing is legitimate). Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AGK [•] 18:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheOdd1sOut[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. There is no in-depth coverage of his, some passing mentions and niche sources like coverage in a high school magazine. His channel(s) are popular, but being popular on YouTube is not part of any notability guideline, which draws the usual question what treshold of popularity equals notability. IMHO this treshold is the same as usual for GNG/BIO - he needs to have received some reliable, in-depth, mainstream coverage, and this is what I am not seeing. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is popular, but that doesn't indicate notability. I've only seen one okay reference. Might need to either delete/draft-ify.
— 192.139.232.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete all of the sources in article are sad social media-driven garbage. Socialblade is a company company that tracks youtube views. It's not what you call journalism.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep I'm not here to be harsh or hostile but the current article does not have enough to indicate notability. However, there is enough media coverage to consider him notable, just not in the current article here. Handoto (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST, if there is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, then the subject of the article is notable, meaning your "delete" !vote seems to be an argument to keep. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IntoThinAir: Yikes, thanks for pointing that out. I'll change my position to Keep, though depending on the outcome it might be good to have the article moved to the draft space where more work could be done. Handoto (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Handoto: could you share some of the links to the media coverage? I couldn't find any sources that mention him in a non-passing manner. --Gonnym (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources I can find are not relevant enough. 70.27.93.49 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 70.27.93.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep as per WP:NEXIST. There's enough out there on him and he seems to be a notable and popular cartoonist. I recommend a major overhaul and some more effort done on the article though.---CoughingCookieHeart (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable enough. It's just little mentions and nothing concrete.
— 192.139.232.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Comment. @IntoThinAir and CoughingCookieHeart: Just like what Gonnym said: NEXIST is all well and good, but if you claim there are good sources, please list them here. I looked and I didn't see 'good' sources. Please show me what I've missed. NEXIST does not allow one to claim that good sources are out there - link them, please; NEXIST cannot be invoked without some proof behind it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since I'm not getting any response for my question and those citing WP:NEXIST aren't providing any sources, I'll have to support deleting this article as non-notable. Ping me if you've provided the sources and wish me to change my vote. --Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 70.51.125.166 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 70.51.125.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I think we may disagree on what counts as "significant" and "in-depth" wrt the GNG. In my view, if multiple independent reliable sources give enough information to write a non-stub article, that's significant enough for me. Also, having lots of subscribers in and of itself isn't sufficient to indicate notability, but per WP:ENT, it does lend some weight. Two sources in the article, [15] [16] look like pretty significant and in-depth coverage to me, so the only possible dispute here is reliability (note that one of these sources is a high school newspaper). The other sources in the article are more brief in coverage, but they still add support to notability: Foodbeast's articles about Sooubway [17] [18] [19] and Rare's article about sprinkles [20]. Is that not enough? I think it's enough, but idk I'm usually pretty lax about these things. Other than these articles, I could only find [21], and a bunch of passing mentions in articles about VidCon, YouTube Rewind, and most-subscribed YouTuber lists, so eh. Ahiijny (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources listed don't indicate enough, at least for now.
— 192.139.232.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The source sare exceptionally bad, even for TouTube celebrities--one of them is a high school newspaper. His recent book is in only 72 libraries according to WorldCat, which is so very low for people in this field as to make his notability unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, did his book make a NYT bestseller list? (uh-oh, with a couple of reviews would that make the book notable?:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, and a PW bestseller list...

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.232.231 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your bolded "delete" vote since it appears you have already bolded delete in a comment above. Mz7 (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braeden Wright[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, or lack mention of the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are enough articles dedicated to the subject to overcome GNG but just barely and this article needs some major pruning. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Clearly PASSES the WP:GNG, and especially the WP:NMODEL. This person has a fully dedicated in-depth interview and profile in Forbes Magazine-- an independent and secondary source with a circulation of almost 1 MILLION, and 71.1 MILLION unique visitors, and also is interviewed and profiled in OUT Magazine, with a magazine circulation of 203,000. This is no small feat of notability in its own right, besides considering the subject very obviously passing the WP:NMODEL criteria in addition. The model is featured on Models.com, the most important and critical source in the fashion industry in ranking the notability of models that there is. To even have a dedicated profile on that site (which is an independent and secondary news source-- models do not control or have any sway on getting a ranking into the site) is proof in itself of being of the most notable models in the entire industry. His profile also shows he was Calvin Klein exclusive in 2015 (the most prestigious brand contract that can be bestowed on a male model), has also walked the runway for Versace, Ralph Lauren, and others. He has also been in ad campaigns for Tom Ford and Steve Madden. These are major and starring involvements in almost all of the top major brand productions in the fashion industry-- especially those that are seen as particularly notable for male models. All of this is very clearly demonstrated in the subject's client work on his Models.com page-- and quite convincingly proves his notability as one of the top male models in the world, in addition to his general notability proven by the Forbes, OUT, and Man of Metropolis in-depth profiles about the subject. To say the model doesn't meet the WP:NMODEL guidelines is clearly showing a lack of knowledge of the modelling industry and perhaps even a lack of fair examination of the sources already provided in the article before making any judgement or criticism. Simply stating something does not prove that statement as fact, without any evidence to backup the argument. I believe this article is of great interest to those in the modelling and fashion community especially, and should most definitely be kept to further enhance Wikipedia and its archival of the history of fashion and culture. Soulman1125 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one is questioning the validity of Forbes, the issue with the Forbes, Man of Metropolis, and OUT articles are they are primary support and the article lacks adequate secondary support. {Interviews are considered to be primary support.) You do not seem to understand their is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notability is not based on popularity, it is based on the establishment of valid non-trivial, in-depth, secondary, independent sources. Show us a couple of independent, in-depth articles written about him. He may be popular, but I don't see how this individual meets the criteria for inclusion. I would also suggest you step back and before saying another editor fails to understand the "Modeling Industry" or fails to exam sources, you make sure you understand the criteria for inclusion. (e.g., WIkipedia based notability vs. "real-world popularity) I would also read WP:AGF before making such concrete statements. The article may enhance Wikipedia, but only if it meets the criteria for inclusion, one that has been defined by many editors over time. reddogsix (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I appreciate your comment and of course I always assume good faith of all editors, and yes, I have read thoroughly the WP:AGF and think it is central to the culture of Wikipedia, and to maintaining a good environment while editors can faithfully help each make this place be the best it can be. I definitely assumed the comment was in good faith, but my concern was that it did not provide any explanation for the argument laid forth-- which obviously I strongly disagree with and attempted to make my case as clearly and respectfully as possible while also openly stating my concerns. My comments addressed that and did not in any way mean to attack the editor, but the lack of argument in the argument itself. Aside from that, I will take a look for ways to address your concerns as soon as possible. Thanks very much! Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very glad that you agree the Forbes, Man of Metropolis, and OUT articles are valid, independent sources-- and that your only contention for determining notability is that you believe they are primary sources. I also agree that the article may enhance Wikipedia, but only if it meets the criteria for inclusion, one that has been defined by many editors over time. I think this is very important, and this is the standard by which we should let the article bear. If, indeed, you refer to WP:PSTS you will note that it reads a "source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." It is therefore established that sources can be considered in part primary, and in part secondary, depending on what statement from the source is being referenced. There are parts of the Forbes/OUT/Man of Metropolis interviews that are the subject speaking directly about himself-- and these statements are of course, primary sources, like you stated. But, as defined by Wikipedia editors before us in WP:SECONDARY the statements made by the author prior to the interview about the subject are secondary sources-- not primary. WP:SECONDARY states "a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." When the author of the Forbes profile of the subject writes in his preface in his own words, this is indeed a secondary, independent, reliable source in the eyes of defining the subject's notability in regards to Wikipedia guidelines. The Forbes author, Joseph DeAcetis, even states that our subject is a "model at one of New York's most esteemed agencies, Soul Artist Management (where he modeled for Tom Ford, Calvin Klein, and various other prominent menswear brands within the fashion industry) within the preface, highlighting the model's stature in the industry and starring involvement in major projects in the modelling industry as well (a critical requirement for WP:NMODEL. This is not the subject stating this in his own words, this is a highly verifiable, highly public and notable, secondary, and independent source giving us this information to source our article by. If you are searching for more secondary sources already present, I highly recommend you examine the Models.com reference in addition, as it is also a secondary, independent, and verifiable source-- and is where a lot of the specific information from the article can be corroborated. This source, I also believe, should be highly regarded both for the subject's WP:GNG considerations, and also the subject's WP:NMODEL requirements, as its list of starring roles in ad campaigns and shows for prominent fashion brands demonstrates the subject "has had significant roles in multiple productions" in the modelling industry, in addition to a "significant cult following" as shown by his social media numbers. I will also be searching for additional secondary sources to further bolster the article as you request when I have more time, but I hope, upon reflection, you may consider my points valid and true and made with good faith. If you do, I hope you consider your concerns addressed, and with that, further consider withdrawing your nomination of this article for deletion. I have seen the amount of editing you do, and sincerely appreciate the amount of work you do to clear up Wikipedia from frivolous, self-promoting articles from people trying to advertise themselves within the entertainment industry-- but I just faithfully do not believe this is one of those articles you should be so pressed to delete. Having said that, I appreciate your views, and thank you for bringing them up for debate. My knowledge and love for Wikipedia has grown in the process. Thanks very much for listening. Much love and thanks. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion for non notable individual. Falls short of WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Referencing is passing, primary, PR or non mentions. The Forbes piece is by a contributor and not by a staff member. It is not under the same editorial control and as such is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment* Hi Duffbeerforme-- wondering what your reasoning is for saying the subject falls short of WP:NMODEL? The subject is cited as having starring roles of major productions in his field of modelling-- particularly Calvin Klein exclusive contract, Versace, Ralph Lauren, and Tom Ford shows and advertising. These are all major productions that the subject starred in, as cited on the independent and secondary source Models.com reference. Can you please elaborate your views on how the subject does not meet the WP:NMODEL standard? Also, the author of the Forbes article is the Fashion editor of the magazine-- not just a contributer. I do believe the article is subject to very high editorial standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulman1125 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for Soulman. WP:NMODEL. 3, no suggestion of anything "unique, prolific or innovative". 2, no sign of a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following". 1, No significant roles in notable productions shown. Your vague allusions to Calvin Klein et al does not make his work fit into that criteria. No everything associated with Calvin Klein is notable. A brand is not a production. Forbes article. The byline very clearly states "Joseph DeAcetis Contributor" so yes that article is just from a contributer. What other jobs he may or maynot have does not change the level of editorial control on that article. And No he is not and never was the Fashion editor of the magazine. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for Duffbeerforme. Hi Duffbeerforme-- very happy to read your explanation but I think there is a lot of readily available information I can provide that would address the concerns you raised. I agree with you on many points (anyone can SAY they are a CK model, but are they? Truly? And did they really star in a major production in the fashion industry for CK if what they say is true? Great point-- I will get to that!), and am sure you are acting in good faith, but I don't believe you have seen the full picture to fully assess-- and I think diving deeper into some more facts about the subject matter may help alleviate your concerns and pursuade you. First-- re: Forbes and the author Joseph DeAcetis-- I misspoke when I described him as the Fashion Editor, his correct title is Forbes 'Style Director'-- an expert in the fashion world for the magazine. A quick Google amassed much of his work directly for the magazine, and verifies that A) he did work for them directly and B) as Style Director of Forbes. In the world of fashion, that is not a small title and I do not believe he should be disregarded as some mere blogger. For example, here is an interview he did on Forbes' official YouTube channel where the description clearly states "Forbes Style Director, Joseph DeAcetis, speaks with the CEO of Rimowa." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08ewJouFE6o) I don't think this should be disregarded in our pursuit of evaluating integrity of the secondary sourcing re: the Forbes article-- although I would also point out that is simply ONE of the sources used to demonstrate notability-- there is also OUT Magazine, Man of Metropolis, The Washington Post, and most importantly regarding notability WP:NMODEL Models.com. Models.com is perhaps the most important marker of notability we have available to us in the modelling industry, and even having a page in itself demonstrates how unique the model is in the industry. You only get one if you are notable, not if you just "say you are a model" like far too many people pretend to on the internet these days. I have expertise in the industry, having worked in and around fashion for many years-- so I can verify this for you-- but don't let me do that: let me provide a key source for you to glean that may demonstrate a few things that can take care of almost all of your concerns and should persuade you to reconsider: please read this New York Times article that was printed in 2013 called 'Don't Know This Face? Just Wait'. The link is here: (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html) In it, you will see a few things demonstrated very clearly that will lift your expertise in viewing this subject's notability requirements, and demonstrates that if any male model SHOULD pass-- it is someone like him. Reading it will show you that: 1) Models.com is an important, verifiable, and independent source of notability in the modelling industry, as proven by the New York Times itself in this article using it as one of their prime sources mentioned in their explanation of notable models in the industry. 2) That being chosen as Calvin Klein exclusive and walking their show (which is perhaps one of the most important PRODUCTIONS in fashion, as the Times article explains) as CK exclusive for that season is regarded as perhaps the MOST UNIQUE and important achievement a male model can make-- satisfying requirement 3 and 1 of WP:NMODEL. Only 2-5 male models in the entire world achieve this EVERY show season. THAT is unique. Braeden Wright was one of the exclusives of the 2015 season-- the season after the one examined in the Times article. This is clearly demonstrated in the Models.com source on Braeden Wright's page and all over fashion media if you dig a bit deeper-- including into Calvin Klein's YouTube video of the show and any coverage in fashion magazines during that season. Beyond that, his Models.com source of his collection of work in fashion productions, once again, demonstrates even more key starring roles in the most major and exclusive fashion productions in the world. After starring as exclusive in the 2015 Calvin Klein show? He went on to star in the following season for Versace and Ralph Lauren. It is clearly listed on Models.com and if you search in any major fashion magazine that covers the shows, you will see him there. The next year, he starred in a Tom Ford campaign ad. These are very specific and important roles that are clearly demonstrated in his Models.com sourcing. If starring in ad campaigns as exclusives in that season's biggest fashion shows for the most exclusive, important, and notable fashion brands in the world don't count to you as notable roles in significant productions in the fashion industry, I would ask you, what does? The requirements for WP:NMODEL clearly state "Has had significant roles in... stage performances, or other productions." In the modelling industry-- this is ad campaigns and major runway appearances, but don't take my word for it-- take the word of the New York Times. And also, if not, why would the New Yorks Times write an article specifically dedicated to proving just how rare, notable, and major that exact role is? Shouldn't we believe the information provided by our reliable, independent, secondary sources such as this, in good faith, when they are so plainly and clearly in view? I believe the founding guidelines in Wikipedia say we should-- and not base our decision on whether we like or know much about the topic ourselves. Lastly, as far as the cult following requirement for WP:NMODEL is concerned-- Models.com lists his following as 25,000 fans on social media. That is more than enough to fill a major arena, no matter how disinterested any of us may feel about the world of modelling or how niche it is to one person-- that is a significant cult following. I, once again, strongly believe this subject meets notability requirements of WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG, and believe this article being included would make Wikipedia better-- especially for those interested in fashion and modelling. I sincerely hope after reading my comment and the Times article that you reconsider your vote accordingly and re-record it as a "keep". Thanks for hearing me out! Demonstrating these points clearly and thoroughly can be a bit lengthy but I realize the burden of proof is on me. So... Thanks again and much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an epic. Have a read of tl;dr. Addressing a few points. Models.com is mostly user submitted and is not a reliable source. No good for notability. Nothing unique about being one of multiple people doing the same thing. You make many claims of staring in notable productions but have he to specifically name a single one, let alone provide any evidence of such. You claim exclusive yet the only reference that mentions any exclusive CK models has him in a list of people without being called exclusive. Who was exclusive? Kevin Hubsmith, Malachi Randell, Mark Syptak. Nothing that special about being an employee. New York Times article, another article that does not mention him. Your claim of cult following, pure original research. Your own personal interpretation about a rather unimpressive number of followers. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read tl;dr. Was trying to be clear yet thorough as it seemed your opinion, while appearing to be in good faith and experienced in Wikipedia, did not seem rooted in expertise in the subject matter. I'll instead be direct as possible, as you request:

1) Reference DOES mention him as exclusive. Clearly states "Braeden Wright (exclusive)" amongst the names you mentioned. Please correct. Thanks.

2) Models.com is NOT mostly user submitted as you state. Unsubstantiated and false claim. They have a full editorial board screening their articles and content, office based in NYC. Here is their masthead as proof: (https://models.com/company/masthead.html). From my knowledge in the industry, and as demonstrated in the New York Times article, Models.com is one of the most respected and powerful independent news sources on the modelling industry. The New York Times used Models.com as the industry benchmark for determining corroborating model information and especially, notability. Clearly demonstrated by my arguments and the article I provided (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html). If the New York Times deems Models.com worthy as their independent, secondary source on model information and notoriety, we should.

3) I have not provided specific links to references in my AfD comments for Braeden Wright's starring roles in stage performances and productions as per WP:NMODEL because the article clearly already references them with evidence (please see Reference 2). When I refer to them (Calvin Klein runway S/S '15 exclusive, Tom Ford ad campaign, Versace S/S '16 runway show, etc.) clearly I am assuming you have done your due diligence to thoroughly read the article. Anyone with credentialed knowledge of the modelling/fashion world would already recognize these exactly as they are: starring roles in stage performances and productions in fashion/modelling. WP:NMODEL specifically states this as a requirement for models, so you cannot say that these performances and productions do not exist for models; and state that the models were merely "employed" by the brand. Furthermore, these specific starring roles are of the most notable and influential performances and productions in fashion, and they ARE performances and productions. These aren't some mall fashion shows in small town Nowhereville where people happen to be wearing the brands, these are THE major runway shows and ad campaigns for each season of some of the most notable fashion brands in the world. This is what notable models do. Another reason I provided the Times piece for your knowledge, as it clearly explains such about one such starring role our subject has accomplished: Calvin Klein exclusivity in their Spring/Summer '15 Milan collection fashion show. Again, the others of note, but not the only ones: subject starred in the Versace Spring/Summer '16 collection Milan fashion show, Ralph Lauren's Spring/Summer '16 Presentation, Tom Ford's Fall/Winter '17 Ad Campaign, and a Steve Madden ad campaign. Please examine Reference 2 in the article thoroughly. Again if these are not what you qualify as starring roles in stage performances and productions in modelling, then what do you qualify? WP:NMODEL clearly states these roles MUST exist, or else it would not be listed so specifically in the requirement. George Clooney or Brad Pitt may be employed by Warner Bros. to star in a movie, but just because they are employees does not mean they are merely employees.

4) Thank you for adding this to the fashion deletion discussion-- hopefully more people with expertise can corroborate my arguments here with more authority. Cheers. Soulman1125 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an epic. Have a read of tl;dr.

1. I see you've updated that page. It now lists him as exclusive.

2. Allow me to quote models.com themselves. "Please keep in mind the vast majority of content on Models.com is submitted by its users" [22].

3. Reference 2 is not a reliable source an does not show that any of his jobs were notable probuctions. Looking at CK. A "Calvin Klein exclusive contract" is not a production. That one runway show shows no sign of being notable.

4. Or more likely they will see through your exaggeration and hyperbole.

On an earlier claims of yours, "and quite convincingly proves his notability as one of the top male models in the world". That source you're relying on, models.com, does not seem to think so [23]. "demonstrates that if any male model SHOULD pass-- it is someone like him". What, ahead of the likes of Fabio, Tyson Beckford, Brad Kroenig (look an aritcle about him [24]), etc? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have no power to edit Models.com. An unsubstantiated personal attack is beneath this community. Read WP:PA before you make another accusation with zero evidence. Talk about assuming good faith.

2) That statement is about their copyright policy about photo and video copyrighted content, not their database of knowledge, models profiles, or their news articles-- their catalog of media consists of a massive database of videos, shows, advertisements-- that been provided to Models.com by copyright holders. What a cherry picked claim to try to disgrace an entire website's credibility. With full context, your claim looks quite poor.

3) Reference 2 is not credible? Then why do the models of note you provide as the gold standard USE IT AS THEIR MAIN REFERENCE AS WELL? Please look at the Wikipedia pages of Brad Kroenig and Tyson Beckford-- what's that you see? A main reference of MODELS.COM. Thanks for proving my point yourself. By your own point of solid model articles that make the cut, you've highlighted exactly the standard the Wiki community has already set precedent to follow: Models.com counts as a credible, independent, secondary source of information, especially about top notable models. I sent you that New York Times article specifically on that Calvin Klein show, in good faith, to highlight just how notable it is-- perhaps the most notable men's show production in fashion. The evidence is pretty unequivocal (thanks New York Times!) no matter how many times you state your unsubstantiated opinion of it not being notable, without any backup, claiming brevity and completely avoiding my counterpoint points as your backup. I invite the Wikipedians in this thread to read it (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/fashion/dont-know-this-face-just-wait.html) and note, once again, that this is merely ONE of the major productions he starred in, as referenced very clearly in the subject's article page, again, specifically in Reference 2, but in others provided as well.

Also, again-- he is profiled in OUT Magazine, Man of Metropolis magazine, in addition the the Washington Post and Forbes references, on top of Models.com. Allow me to reference Wikipedia's notability guideline WP:N VERY specifically: "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. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The compilation of sources referencing our subject pass the bar of WP:GNG alone even aside from him passing WP:NMODEL (which I believe he does), even despite your criticisms.

You might want to read WP:TLDR yourself-- specifically "Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on their talk page and politely offer advice there. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché." Thanks x Soulman1125 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another epic.

1. When I commented on 14 September it did not say exclusive. On 16 September it did not say exclusive, as seen at wayback [25]. When you comment in 19 September it has been changed to say exclusive. Was that just an amazing coincidence? Was the uncharacteristic 5 days before your reply here to give the page time to update?

(Going back further [26] it did not even mention him.)

2. Allow me to quote models.com themselves. "Please keep in mind the vast majority of content on Models.com is submitted by its users," [27]. The vast majority of their content, unqualified. Yes they do have a staff. Note this article by one of their staff, note the existance of a byline.

3. Reference 2 is not a reliable source. I never said not credible. Strawman. Other pages might use models.com. Many pages also use imdb at it is still recognised as not being a reliable source. Regardless, that page is a primary source, straight from CK. (Beckford page using models.com the main reference? No, clearly not, used only once to verify minor details. Do you realise that when make such hyperbolic claims people can actually check for themselves and don't have to take your dubious words at face value.) You keep going on about that New York Times article but it still does not mention him. That one runway show still shows no sign of being notable. Just being one of multiple people walking on a runway is not in itself starring.

Allow me to quote the New York Times article. "Above all, they get a shot at stardom." and "Being cast in a Calvin Klein show, Mr. Bart added, “is still the opportunity to become that new face, the next Marky Mark.”" and “Yes, it’s a fashion show, so it’s ultimately about the clothes,”. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is a reliable source-- if we gauge it on the meter and criteria explicitly provided by OFFICIAL Wikipedia guidelines-- as opposed to your opinion, or referencing Wiki essays like WP:TLDR-- which clearly state "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Please keep in mind that arguments made standing on the official guidelines take precedence over your opinion or these essays you have chosen to bring up repeatedly. I still hope you are acting in good faith and despite your challenges, I appreciate hearing opposing views-- but do not appreciate the level of personal attack and lack of WP:AGF that has appeared through your string of comments towards me personally. Regardless, I will not participate in that level of discussion, and I extend an olive branch to you to remind you that we are all here to try to make Wikipedia better. Instead, let me get back to citing official Wikipedia guidelines and policy in counter to your claim that Models.com is not a reliable, secondary source. Again, that section you reference is within their media copyright infringement policy-- and in my view is clearly referencing the mass amounts of photo and video content within their site. Their website is also a database-- the primary material collected within is of course submitted by users who hold the copyright-- but the way it is then collected, analyzed, and presented in a new form is in itself secondary WP:SECONDARY. We are not at Calvinklein.com-- we are at Models.com, who has collected and repackaged primary material from Calvinklein.com, etc. in a newly synthesized and now secondary form. They did not create the show themselves, they have nothing to do with it-- they are analyzing it independently from it. An independent source assembling primary sources to create something new through "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" is exactly what secondary source is as clearly outlined in WP:SECONDARY. So, again, your claim that it is primary is incorrect under the definition of official Wikipedia guidelines.

More importantly to our debate on the use of Models.com towards notability-- your opinion that it is not reliable seems in stark contrast to official Wikipedia guidelines. According to it, WP:SOURCES it clearly passes especially when examining this specific phrase: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers, Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." Models.com is a well respected mainstream publication, and is respected by other mainstream publications as such-- as specifically evidenced by the New York Times piece I referred to you, as evidenced by their use as Models.com as their own reliable source for information on models. That was one of the main reasons I brought it to this discussion-- not because it did or did not mention the subject of the article. If you disagree-- I would love to hear your arguments provided with specific evidence specifically referencing official Wikipedia guidelines. I am open to your thoughts and arguments, but this discussion is not a place for opinion or unsubstantiated arguments footed on merely personal views, references to unofficial Wikipedia essays or referring to policy without explicitly stating how and why it backs up what you propose. Hope you have a great day and looking forward to hearing from you. Cheers x. Soulman1125 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One final point-- you keep framing the subject's starring roles as only this Calvin Klein S/S '16 show-- and attacking that one event as not notable. Again, as clearly demonstrated by the article and Models.com already, he has had plenty more starring roles (as per WP:NMODEL) after that. Models.com, Forbes, W Magazine, Man of Metropolis all refer to the other starring roles that followed over years-- Tom Ford ad campaign, Steven Madden ad campaign, Versace, etc. For the third time-- if these are not starring roles in modelling, then what is? You continue to refuse to answer the question and disregard this entirely. Looking forward to hearing your rebuttal. Again, all my best. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the song "Talkin' Loud and Sayin' Nothing". Good song.

"collected, analyzed, and presented in a new form", Nope, no analysis

"who has collected and repackaged primary material from Calvinklein.com", Nope, they didn't collect, "primary material collected within is of course submitted by users who hold the copyright".

I could go on but you don't listen.

Regardless of the way you want to frame models.com it doesn;t matter as they have not written anything about Wright.

Interesting emphasis on the quote from SOURCE, w=you missed the important word, reliable.

You keep saying Starring roles but have yet to back up that claim. Where is the independent sourcing that discuss his role? You have also not yet identified a single specific notable production he supposedly starred in. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes source has gotten a lot of mention in this thread, but I doubt its validity as a reliable source. It is not from the magazine, but rather, Forbes.com, which is hot/cold on the quality of submitted contributor articles. Such things are essentially carefully disguised blog posts that do not reflect independent editorial oversight, despite whatever pedigree individual contributors bring to the table. This one, an interview with the subject, has received only 1,500 views per their own page count, not much compared to the "71.1 million unique visitors" touted above. I'm holding off on i-voting, though. My expertise is mostly in the field of music promotion/marketing (and I believe he fails notability music-wise), although this subject deserves equal assessment as a fashion model--a topic I'm not too knowledgable about. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi ShelbyMarion-- I agree that the subject deserves equal assessment as a fashion model especially. I just wrote a lengthy comment above yours that goes into great detail to explain how the subject clearly passes WP:NMODEL and would greatly appreciate it if you could read it in full and weigh your opinion accordingly. I hope you will find that the arguments I have raised satisfy your concerns and all of Wikipedia's written rules on demonstrating WP:NMODEL of the subject. Also-- the New York times article I provided is a great read in itself! Hope you enjoy and thanks for participating. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more time to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Some references may cover WP:GNG. But I think the article requires some trimming of the promotional-style content and pruning of weak promotional sources such as Spotify and Apple Music. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the whole thing stinks of promotional editing, but I don't see any good reason to delete this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any good reasons to keep this spam? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as other editors have also noted, it passes WP:GNG, and as I have argued, it also passes WP:NMODEL. Whether you're personally interested in the article's subject, dismissing it as "spam" isn't as relevant as it meeting the official Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion-- which it does. Soulman1125 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors have noted, it fails WP:GNG. Other than yourself no one has gone past WP:PERPOLICY. You have only pointed to primary sources, database listing and interviews, none of which satisfy gng. You have thoroughly bludgeoned this afd with your claim of passing NMODEL but you have yet to identify a single specific notable production where he has a verified starring role. I once again ask you to back up your claim with coverage from independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After much input from other editors, I have taken it upon myself to be bold and trim a significant amount of fat from the article-- as recommended by users in this thread who voted "Keep". I trimmed nearly half of the Music Career section that could have been seen as overly promotional in wording, a possibly overly promotional sounding sentence from the Modelling Career section, and the Personal Life section altogether-- as another editor had already aptly and correctly removed the citation used for that information (an Instagram post that disqualifyingly referenced a third party, even though blog posts published by the subject of Biographical articles are permitted per Wiki guidelines as long as they follow certain rules-- one of which that particular citation did break WP:SELFSOURCE.) I think these changes and those already made by other editors has greatly improved things. Thank you to everyone for your input-- I think the article has been much improved by this process. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! --David Tornheim (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see plenty of secondary sources to make him notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wnek[edit]

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

I do not believe that this article satisfies the Wikipedia notability criterion, i,e that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I have read all the quoted sources, and summarize them here.

1) Vranica, Suzanne (2005-11-30). "Questions for… Mark Wnek". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This reports an interview with Wnek after he was named chairman and chief creative officer of Lowe's flagship New York office. Lowe Worldwide is a major advertising agency. Wnek provides lots of information about his previous career. This is not a reliable secondary source as the information has mainly been provided by the subject.

2) "The second coming". Marketing week. 20 November 2003. Retrieved 2018-07-21. This article starts:

“Arrogant’ and ‘bastard’ come up frequently in people’s description of ex-Euro RSCG chief Mark Wnek, though none deny his creative talent. Lucy Barrett meets the hard man of advertising, alleged to have been mellowed by first-time fatherhood” It then goes on to describe a successful career in advertising to date and also his personality.

It says that he went to school with former Labour communications chief Alastair Campbell, but since the latter went to school in Yorkshire and then Leicester, and the article claims that Wnek is from Brixton, London, one has to wonder about the credibility of the article.

Nonetheless, this may constitute a reliable secondary source.

3) "Mark Wnek joins Lowe New York". Marketing Week. 28 April 2005. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This simply states that

“Mark Wnek, former chairman of Euro RSCG group and co-founder of failed start-up Ben Mark Orlando, has been appointed chairman and chief executive of Lowe New York.”

A passing reference to the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage.

4) Mcmains, Andrew (20 April 2005). "Wnek Moves to Lowe as CCO". Adweek. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This article says: “Lowe said it is replacing U.S. chairman and chief creative officer Gary Goldsmith with Mark Wnek, former creative chief and co-chairman at Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper Partners in London.” There is then some discussion of the existing structure at Lowe, and the article then says: “Wnek, sources said, has been looking to work in the U.S. and talked to several agencies before accepting the Lowe post.”

A passing reference to the appointment of the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage.

5) Hatfield, Stefano (2005-04-21). "Will Mark Wnek be king of New York?". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

The author of this article admits to being a friend of Wnek’s., so this is not a reliable secondary source.

6) "Mark Wnek - Crisis and Creativity, The future and Dinosaurs - Cannes 2009". Adland. 1 July 2009. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This is a report of an interview with Wnek, so this is not a reliable secondary source

7) Hall, Emma (19 January 2009). "Lowe Lives: How an Agency Left Deathbed for Profits". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

The is a report on the advertising Company Lowe, and makes a brief mention of Wnek: “Even if the network's London office is still a mess, New York has turned around under the leadership of Mark Wnek”

A passing reference to the subject in an article about a company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage

8) Paresh, Rhupal (2009). "The Story Behind the Lowe/Deutsch Merger". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This article is also about Lowe and mentions Wnek as follows:

"Several attempts to shock it back to life after that period of merger-mania-driven client losses failed, though the most recent go at it, led by Mark Wnek, at least helped reacquaint the agency with the idea of a new- business win. But Mr. Wnek, a British import, was basically pushed out in the merger."

A passing reference to the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute a significant coverage

9) "Former U.N. Creative Chief Creates Millennial-Fueled Talent 'Army'". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This is a report of an interview with Wnek and is therefore not a reliable secondary source.

Only reference (2) could be considered as a reliable secondary source, but one marketing magazine’s reporting of a marketing man does not constitute significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdosteovsky (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:BIO. This person is not noted; unsure whether the article is useful or more like promo --Jay (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because it lacks WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that this individual is notable or unique. The article also reads like a promotional bio, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Monkarsh[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Google news only shows passing mentions in four sources: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Three are for, Green Olds, which is still in pre-production, the fourth is for a movie that we don't have an article on. Article was being maintained by Trafficcityllc, who is either the article subject or someone working for him. The original draft (by an WP:SPA) suggests that this was a vanity piece. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

Regarding decision to nominate page for deletion by Ian.thomson and CAPTAIN RAJU see links below.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20070225115818/http://www.worldfest.org/PAGES/winners.htm to http://www.worldfest.org/PAGES/winners.htm
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20110716182912/http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/948788 to http://www.cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/948788
3. https://web.archive.org/web/20120225034657/http://www.chacha.com/question/what-movies-was-jason-london-in?-more to http://www.chacha.com/question/what-movies-was-jason-london-in?-more
4. https://web.archive.org/web/20101223065710/http://123nonstop.com/movie/Mothers_Little_Helpers_%282010%29_1294882 to http://www.123nonstop.com/movie/Mothers_Little_Helpers_%282010%29_1294882
5. https://web.archive.org/web/20120324074712/http://www.moviesplanet.com/movies/272087/the-evolution-of-ethan-baskin to http://www.moviesplanet.com/movies/272087/the-evolution-of-ethan-baskin
  In addition to the archival links above, please see more recent links below for any concerns regarding further validity or notability.
6. https://variety.com/exec/josh-monkarsh/
7. https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Josh-Monkarsh/2034806630
8. https://www.deadline.com/2017/09/thomas-haden-church-finn-wittrock-alice-eve-green-olds-director-max-mayer-1202161697/amp/
9. https://www.thewrap.com/james-haven-angelina-jolie-brother-to-direct-airborne-virus-movie-the-last-boy-exclusive/amp/
10. https://www.screendaily.com/news/myriad-pictures-boards-sales-rights-to-green-olds/5122008.article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezo7474 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) @Beezo7474: It's interesting that you registered the day after I blocked Trafficcityllc and suggested a lot of links that that user added, which I removed because they don't meet our reliable sourcing criteria. I suggest that you disclose your employment/relation to Traffic City llc on your user page.
  Most of the archival links you suggest are not reliable sources. I don't understand why I have to explain that ChaCha.com is unreliable. It's no different than asking someone on the street "hey, what do you know about this?" The moviesplanet.com source might begin to qualify as reliable, except that we can't verify that the page wasn't user generated or even just a directory listing. The closest thing that might qualify as reliable and noteworthy was the worldfest.org site. I removed that from the article with the edit summary The "award" bit, as seen at https://worldfest.org/remiwinners/2003.xls , shows 1004 entries. That's a directory listing (from an organization that we don't even have an article on), not an indication of any sort of acclaim.
  Zoominfo is an obvious directory listing. The Variety page might as well be a directory listing as it doesn't say anything about Monkarsh. We don't just put up an article on someone because they're in the phone book.
  The rest of the links you provide are the mobile versions of the articles I linked and discussed in my first post -- they aren't about Monkarsh, they barely mention him. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of all of the links provided above, only four (Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 10) seem to have potential, but out of those four only No. 2 amounts to anything more than a single name mention. Such sources might be acceptable as citations to verify certain article content about Monkarsh, but I'm not sure that even they represent the type of WP:SIGCOV generally required by WP:BIO or even WP:FILMMAKER. Having a film screened at the Cannes Film Festival seems impressive, but not sure if that's enough on its own to establish notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No. 2 is from "PRNewswire." At the bottom, it says "SOURCE Josh Monkarsh." It was a press release written by the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trying to establish Wikipedia notability as a filmmaker seems to be the only plausible way to argue that this article be kept since being Wikipedia notable as a real estate developer seems out of the question in my opinion. I've tried doing a little more digging for stuff, but have come up empty. Since a press release written by the subject (I missed that the first time around) cannot be used to establish Wikpedia notability per WP:NRV, that pretty much does it for all the links provided above. Maybe Green Olds will turn out to be a huge hit once its released and Monkarsh will become the talk of Hollywood as a result; right now, however, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

- I believe Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 10 to be perfectly acceptable source links.Ian.thomson and CAPTAIN RAJU. This individual’s page was added 8 years ago to Wikipedia. Why is it now being subject to deletion? The source links provided offer both noteworthy and accurate information - despite your position on one or more of the websites from where the information originated. Making decisions for deletion based on your personal like or dislike of a source website due to its name is unprofessional and in the case of “ChaCha.com” discriminatory on several levels, despite the website no longer being active (likely due to the individual’s page being created 8 years ago). With respect to your position on the individual acting as the source of information for the Cannes Film Festival press release, this should have zero relevance as doesn’t change the fact the individual had a film premiere at the film festival. I am also seeing the individual is a partner at PalmStar Media Capital (PSMC) as of 2011.
  For further validation regarding the individual’s position at PSMC, see article below referencing the individual’s position as being a representative of PSMC.
  https://www.screendaily.com/news/myriad-pictures-boards-sales-rights-to-green-olds/5122008.article
  For further validation in regards to PSMC, see links below.
  https://deadline.com/2017/07/national-lampoon-acquisition-palmstar-media-12-million-dollar-deal-revive-humor-brand-1202134623/
  https://deadline.com/2016/06/the-butterfly-garden-movie-dot-hutchison-anonymous-content-palmstar-media-1201777747/
  With respect to the WorldFest Houston: https://web.archive.org/web/20070225115818/http://www.worldfest.org/PAGES/winners.htm to http://www.worldfest.org/PAGES/winners.htm.
  I’m not sure how you missed this? This film festival has been around for over 50 years and should without a doubt be added to the Wikipedia database. If you search the festival name you will find other mentions of it on other individual’s Wikipedia pages Beezo7474 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Beezo7474 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezo7474 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Beezo7474: Try reading what people said instead of responding as if they haven't already addressed and dismissed your points. That you're continuing to address Captain Roju (who has done nothing except tag the discussion) proves you aren't paying any attention. This is the second time you've brought up sources that other users have shown do not fit our reliable sourcing standards or do not provide in-depth coverage. You seem to mistakenly believe that blathering on and repeating the same dismissed points will have any effect besides disruption.
    Again, source number 2 was a press release written by Josh Monkarsh, not Cannes. That's no different than saying something is true "because I say so." In fact, given how obvious it is that you're either Monkarsh or someone working for him, it's dishonest to pretend that the press release is from Cannes.
    Again, sources 8, 9, and 10 barely mention Monkarsh's name only once. Only a total narcissist could count that as "in-depth coverage" about themselves. The same goes for the Screendaily.com source that I already addressed in my first post.
    Again, ChaCha.com was a website where you asked random people to search stuff on Google for you and not give the answers. The business model favored immediate responses over correct responses. It is beyond indefensible. You need to explain why asking random people who would rather get 2 cents for hitting the first answer to pop up are somehow a reliable source if you want to defend ChaCha.com.
    And agin, as I explained for the WorldFest Houston award -- there were over 1000 recipients. The award doesn't really indicate notability if they were giving them like medals at the Special Olympics.
    As for your new-ish points: just because a mistake was made 8 years ago and no one noticed doesn't mean that it shouldn't be cleaned up.
    It doesn't matter if Monkarsh works/ed with PalmStar Media, notability is not inherited. That's why we don't have articles on every cashier at Walmart (that and we're not a directory). I addressed the screendaily.com source in my first post -- it barely mentions his name once. The deadline.com sources you bring up don't mention Monkarsh at all!
    To be as clear as possible, you need to bring up multiple, independent, professionally-published sources that are explicitly about Monkarsh (not just mentioning him in passing but describing him). They cannot have been written by him or by some idiot getting paid 2 cents to click the first Google result that pops up for someone. He has to be the primary focus of the source (not just mentioned in passing, not just one of more than a thousand subjects). An article can get by with just three such sources but millions of name-drops or self-written sources do nothing.
    Again, @Beezo7474: read what people have said, learn from it, and respond to those points instead of repeating the same dismissed points because you weren't paying any attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Beezo7474: Regarding your comment This individual's page was added 8 years ago to Wikipedia. Why is it now being subject to deletion?, please take a look at WP:LONGTIME for more details. Basically there have been lots of articles added to Wikipedia over the years which probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. Pretty much anyone can create an article, and sometimes it just takes time for it to be noticed and assessed. This often seems to particularly be the case when the subject is not very well known and the article doesn't get lots of page views, etc. It's only tends to be when the article is flaggd for some kind of problem that more experienced editors start looking at it and assessing it. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers will come and go as they please. Most editors tend to work on subject matters that they personally find interesting as opposed to general monitoring, maintaining and assessing existing and new articles. There are more than six million Wikipedia articles with more being created daily, but there are only so many volunteers willing to dig through these various articles and assess them. So, some of them sometimes slip by unnoticed for years before they appear on someone's radar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ian.thomson First you make a conniving and discriminatory fueled remark with respect to “Cha-Cha.com” and now you make an even more derogatory reference to special needs individuals by discussing the special Olympics in a demeaning way? Wow. Based on your characterization on the items above I don’t believe you are fit to be a reputable contributor. Your only sound argument here is the Cannes Press release from over 10 years ago! You have not fully addressed the other items mentioned with the exception of Worldfest Houston which is mentioned on other Individual’s Wikipedia pages (did you bother looking?). With respect to my recent points, if notability is not inherited, then why should I as a new contributor take this conversation with you seriously? Do you Ian Thompson, represent the sole voice of Wikipedia? No, you don’t. This statement is contradictory to your goal to remove this page. And your apparent sociopathic views should not undermine or overwrite past contributor efforts. I understand several of my points have been repeated and this was primarily for your eyes alone (and one or two others yet to dispute my recent points) in order to demonstrate my firm position and disagreement with your request for the deletion of this page. And as a new Wikipedia contributor I will center my focus on blocking you from further deletion actions of other Wikipedia pages you nominate that have a similar backstory to the nominee’s page. Marchjuly All good points and thank you for your input. You are significantly clearer headed than Ian. I still however am of the opinion the page should not be subject to deletion due to the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezo7474 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Beezo7474: See WP:No personal attacks.
        If you are not going to actually read what anyone writes beyond looking for key words, especially if you are going to put words in other people's mouths, then there's no point in further explaining things for you.
        And if you're going to lie about your obvious relationship to the subject, then there's not really any reason in giving you opportunity to respond. If your next action is anything besides disclosing your financial affiliation with Traffic City LLC and/or Josh Monkarsh (as instructed on your talk page), you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ian.thomson See WP:No personal attacks. I am referencing to your undermining of cha-cha.com due to the name of the website. For all you know I could be Latino and found your dismissiveness of the site (due to the name alone) to be insulting. I will allow you to defend yourself on this topic. With respect to your claims that I am somehow affiliated to the individuals page and or the individuals company you are mistaken as I am here to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by fighting for the survival of this page as my first objective. More pages nominated for deletion by you to follow. And I am within the rights of the first amendment to do so. Beezo7474 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Beezo7474: The focus of this discussion whether this article should be kept; so, that's where the focus needs to stay. If you feel that Ian.thomson's comments or behavior is inappropriate and not in accordance with WP:CONDUCT, then the place to discuss that is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You're welcome to start a discussion there if you want, but before you do you should carefully read through Wikipedia:ANI advice first so that you fully understand what that entails.
        My opinion about the sources you're citing above is the same as Ian's; they either don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source or they don't provide the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish Monkarsh's Wikipedia notability and nothing you've posted since then has changed my opinion. The problem with cha.cha.com has nothing to do with the name of the site, but everything to do with the fact that it was mostly user-generated content and as such is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A discussion of the website previously was held Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121#ChaCha, but you can ask about it again at WP:RSN if you feel it should be considered as a reliable source in this particular case.
        Finally, just for general reference, you might want to look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and WP:GD#Please do not take it personally just to better understand the purpose of an AfD dicussions and WP:AFDCLOSE for information on how such discussions are closed. You might also want to look at WP:FREE and WP:NOTHERE (the latter might be relevant if the survival of this article is really your first objective). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one vaild vote, rest is WP:NOTHERE - needs more !votes in order to have clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BLP sourced only to IMDb and no clear claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP with no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the author is notable by WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. It was suggested that the article should be improved. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Allen[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only sources are about her books, and her claims to fame and other promotional crap are unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC

Delete per nom - fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Could be a WP:PROMO violation and/or a case of WP:G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is inadequate and under-referenced, but Allen is a figure in Irish journalism. Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. The Irish Times has a review of her book "The Set Up" [32]. There are reviews of her book "Last to Know" in the Irish Independent (29 May 2004), the Irish Times Weekend Review (12 June 2004), Ireland on Sunday (13 June 2004), VIP (13 June 2004) and Irish World (18 June 2004). There are over six hundred library holdings of her books: [33]. James500 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true: library holdings are not an indication of notability, even if you would like to invent and promote that policy in multiple AFDs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly an indication of it, but not a conclusive one for Wikipedia purposes. So James500 gave other reasons for keeping the page as well. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The Riih Times articles above are good. I removed two non-RS sources from Goodreads. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per James500. /Julle (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) gidonb (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leann Hunley[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Not sending to BLP PROD as there are external links, but they are likely unreliable (example: it has a link to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source). Likely passes WP:NBIO, but needs citations to confirm that - will withdraw if reliable sourcing is provided. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Even a casual WP:BEFORE finds a profile in People [34], confirmation of Emmy win in Los Angeles Times [35], discussion in a book [36], for example. Many more articles with in-depth coverage show up in newspaper archives from the 1980s, eg "UW dropout Leann Hunley finds her calling on 'Dynasty'" (Seattle Times 05 May 1987: F1), "Days Of Our Lives fans will miss Leann Hunley" (Toronto Star 01 Nov 1986: S92), "Leann Hunley has a date with an angel" (St. Petersburg Times 09 Feb 1988: 7D). Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Bakazaka (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. I'd ask the nominator to, if they state in the very nomination that the article should probably be kept and lacks contentious content, consider doing a cursory WP:BEFORE, find some basic sources, or try to bring it to other editors' attention if that's not an option, instead of immediately bringing it to AfD, given the bureaucratic burden an AfD means when we have to discuss "should we have this article?" instead of "how can we make this article better?". /Julle (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has had notable roles on shows such as Dynasty and Days of Our Lives (where she won a Daytime Emmy). There are also several newspapers articles about her during her peak fame in the 1980s, so she also meets the GNG. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawing in order to mark for cleanup, as upon review it is savable. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Ferries[edit]

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

Written as if it was promotional, and notability is not established within the article (thereby failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG). Kirbanzo (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not unduly promotional. Notability well sourced. WP:TROUT for the nominator. Cabayi (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly listed as the sources appear unreliable (besides the Irish Times). Add more news articles to address my concerns, and I can withdraw as I know deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now the Irish Independent is unreliable too? Quoted on 2 stock markets isn't enough? Sorry, I'm not adding unneeded refs just to save your face - you can back-pedal all on your own. Cabayi (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes notability easily, try reading the article. Wikipedia:INEVERHEARDOFIT is not a valid argument for deletion. Spleodrach (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was the wording being promotional and several sources being potentially unreliable (besides the Irish Times, mainly). Kirbanzo (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not read as overly promotional to me, but if you feel it does, then you should edit the article accordingly. Spleodrach (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boson (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quizizz[edit]

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

How-to guide to a non-notable online tool without reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO Cabayi (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatantly promotional, and WP:NOTHOWTO. There is some coverage out there, but mostly seem to be single-author reviews and short routine coverage of questionable reliability and independence. (E.g. [37] [38]) The strongest source I could find was Fortune India, but that is not enough to keep the article in its present state. MarginalCost (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had there been an appropriate speedy category then this is where this article should be headed. However, we are at AfD and this has zero notability nor even any serious effort to try and provide notability. This looks very much like a paid editing job - "get this on Wikipedia and I'll give you $10" - job done, it's here, now let's tidy up afterwards. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Bordering G11 material. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there coverage will develop, but right now, to get rid of all the sources parroting the announcement about them raising $3 million in funding, I Googled quizizz -raises -raised and Google's initial hit tally fell from 3,050 to 56. (Funding announcements are like birth and wedding announcements—the question is whether anyone talks about the operation for doing what it actually does.) The 56 remaining hits seem to mention Quizizz mostly in the context of a set of similar products. Largoplazo (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pages read like a how-to guide with little to no coverage in significant sources. —Mythdon 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nayeemuddin[edit]

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

This appears to be a highly undesirable individual who has been shot dead by the police but for whom there is no good evidence that he has ever been prosecuted for the alleged crimes. The refs read like tabloid sensationalism . Fails WP:BLPCRIME Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing of ~~BLPCRIME~~ edit GNG and BLP1E.Strikerforce^Talk 20:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) edit Strikerforce^Talk 21:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Disagreement between myself and @DBigXray: over the article's name aside, the sourcing for this article has vastly improved since my initial !vote. I can now say Keep per GNG, as a result of the additional sources that suggest that LASTING is met, among other things. Strikerforce^Talk 15:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strikerforce Isn't BLP1E also a BLP policy, note the subject died in 2016.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single event - which I feel applies here, as laid out below - links to a see also of BLP1E. Their use here is interchangeable. Strikerforce^Talk 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strikerforce, Please accept my thanks for re-considering this !vote based on WP:HEY, cheers and regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has since been moved - inappropriately, in my opinion - to Nayeem. Since this discussion has been opened, I will not revert that move. Strikerforce^Talk 20:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was Notable and passes the WP:GNG and WP:CRIMINAL due to the sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage spread over a period of twenty years. I have listed below the sources I used for judging the notability of the gangster. To summarise, First is the Official statement on the Telangana Chief Minister's website about him [39] Then coverage in Mainstream national media, with coverage spread over several years related to his links, crimes, death, investigation post death. (Note: no tabloids in the list.) 2012 1998 (Gangs attack rights activists in Andhra Pradesh from 2005) 2017 [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45][46] [47] [48] [49] 2014 --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIMINAL because of good secondary sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, I'm not seeing a pass of GNG and it probably falls under WP:BLP1E. Anyways, to the people above who commented it failed BLPCRIME, be aware that BLPCRIME is not a notability guideline and is in fact pertaining to keeping accusations of crimes out of BLP's before they are proven. I am in strong support of deletion. Vermont (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont 1. The person died in 2016 so its not BLP. 2. The Person was covered in mainstream media for more than 25 years. (e.g. 2012 1998 so its not 1EVENT. I have added more sources and text before find search links for keywords. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, help us out here - for what event other than being an alleged killer was he notable? Note that the use of the word "alleged" is due to the fact that, as far as any references provided have shown, he was never actually convicted for the crimes of which he was accused. Strikerforce^Talk 21:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, BLP applies to those recently deceased as well. Either way, he only seems to be notable for that one event and thus I believe this warrants a section in another article but an article specifically about Nayeem. Vermont (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, He was notable for being a dreaded Naxalite leader since 1998 see (Gangs attack rights activists in Andhra Pradesh from 2005), He then became a police informer and led to the killings of several naxalite squads in the region. He then became a Gangster, and was finally killed. [50]. I have added several links in the comments above with years (I dont want to repost). Please take a look. regards.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even Speedy delete. As it was written, it stated he's a criminal and murderer which he was not convicted for - which is a WP:BLP violation (even though he's now dead - it applies to recently deceased too). BLP1E applies as well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tod, Article is judged on the subjects notability and not simply based on the current content see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP DBig Xrayᗙ 22:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is judged on all aspects of its reasons to be. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article and two other biographies are all relying on the same coverage. Belli Lalitha and K. S. Vyas and this article could all be merged into Crime in Andhra Pradesh. As could coverage of any other Naxalites. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:HEY All, I have improved the articles and added some quality sources to show the notability. It can be further be expanded but for now, I hope the sources provided above and in the article should be enough--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Despicable but notable man, per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NCRIME.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable gang leader / militant leader. BLP not applicable (dead over 2 years, and one could possibly argue WELLKNOWN). LASTING national level coverage in India in English (which quite possibly means non-English sources exist as well) - which would seem to satisfy GNG / NCRIME. His killing has interesting property ramifications,[51] as well as IA in the relevant Police.[52] Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, and, he's still in the news 2 yrs post-death: Times of India Suspended cop being probed for 'Maoist links New Delhi [New Delhi]26 Apr 2018. "Eleven months after many police officers were suspended for alleged links with slain Maoist-turned gangster Mohammed Nayeemuddin, the Commissioner of Inquiries has formally initiated a probe against suspended additional superintendent of police (CID) M Srinivas Rao..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG Sheldybett (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Morgan[edit]

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

Subject requests page deletion JEM1406a (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:50, 18 September 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 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Subject requests" is not a reason for deletion. She is notable, and the article is not defamatory. Maproom (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - there is no evidence showing that the subject of the article wants the page deleted, this deletion rationale is moot and as such there is no valid rationale for deletion. Recommend a WP:SNOW closure. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kirbanzo: What is the correct way for Morgan to provide evidence that she wants the article about her to be deleted? Absent that, what is the correct way for @JEM1406a: to provide that evidence? GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An email or statement that the subject would allow to be public would be good evidence - and for presentation of evidence, an external link should suffice. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be evidence, yes. But it would not warrant deleting the article. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is not a low-profile individual as she has given interviews to widely available publications. No controversial information on the page, and no personal information now I've removed the unsourced precise date of birth (year was easily sourced). Article has independent reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Qwfp (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not delete articles on request. How many negative articles would we whitewash knowledge of if we took the advice of the subject? Preposterous. Clearly meets notability guidelines, represented her national team in the World Championships this year. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @JEM1406a: The subject of the article can be referred to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons; especially the section called Dealing with articles about yourself. If the details and reasoning of the subject's request for deletion cannot be shared publicly, then an e-mail request can be made to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as OTRS). Contact info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article and provide details of the concerns. Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boson (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Brien (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor; Nothing to say beyond that. Only thing that comes up in searches are personal sites and imdb. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having acted in a few movies as a supporting cast member or redshirt (literally none of his roles even has a last name) does not make one a notable actor. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, this one fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG pretty easily. No reliable sources to be found anywhere, no significant roles at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subjects meet WP:GNG (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 12:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Roll[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Cites are to items which are abot products rather than him. TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Martin Roll is a well-respected author especially in the topic of C-suite branding in Asia. His works can be found [53] here on Amazon. A prove of his association with INSEAD can also be found on INSEAD site at [54]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belindaang (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote the original entry and I am amazed by the continued attempts to delete him. The previous editor that tried, ended up supporting keeping the article, and improved it considerably. Roll is a frequent expert contributor to global media, there is a full back page from China Daily only about him and he is the author of several books, one of which won the accolades of Business+Strategy. I am really lost as to why this is not sufficient, as my reading of the notability guidelines I have always followed, says that he fulfils the requirement. I am also slightly disappointed by an editor who says "about products and not about him", when this is factually incorrect, something that is evident if one reads all the referenced articles. Tobias Tan (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is the talk page edit that I made after reaching the conclusion that, contrary to my initial opinion, Martin Roll meets WP:GNG and therefore merits an article in Wikipedia. Zazpot (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. Coverage in China Daily and quite a lot of sources in GNews. Review of "Asian Brand Strategy" in The Telegraph: [55] (see "BookEnd" section). Coverage in strategy+business magazine: [56]. It is also highly cited with well over a hundred cites: [57]. There are reviews of "The Future of Branding" in Global Business Review, volume 17, issue 6 and Vision, volume 20, issue 4, [58] (both December 2016). There are over seven hundred library holdings of his books: [59]. James500 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis (executive/activist)[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Excessively promotional, regardless of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Barnitt[edit]

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

I don't believe this person passes the notability criteria for inclusion. Most of his appearances in films are insignificant (failing WP:NACTOR) and as a singer he hasn't had a charting song or anything that would help satisfy the criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). There is also a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources discussing the subject. Flooded with them hundreds 14:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO as mentioned above. No reliable sources are included, nor can I find any significant coverage via a Google news search. Also - there appears to be a conflict of interest and/or original research. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a vanity article created by SPA editor under different user names/IP addresses. Sources are minor, nothing significant that indicates notability or encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You were right; it was one editor using multiple accounts. They have since been blocked. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article establishes notability and no reliable and verifiable sources were found in a Google search to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:MUSICBIO. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Herr Auto Group[edit]

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

This article has questionable notability. Buffaboy ^talk 13:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and is definitely WP:ADV or WP:PROMO, could easily be Speedy'd for promotion. Bkissin (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrovector space[edit]

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

Claimed as WP:OR in the lead. Mainly sourced by article authored or published by Ungar. Lack of secondary sources establishing notability. It appears from the long discussions in the talk page that this theory does not belong to the mainstream of mathematics and theoretical physics D.Lazard (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple in-depth sources. If POV/inaccuracy has been introduced into this article it needs filtering out, but that's not a cause for deletion.
- "Gyrogroups in proejctive hyperbolic Clifford analysis" is a 20-page article which says that the concept of gyrogroups (which redirects here) was conceived in 1988, so it's been around a long time. As far as I can tell, Ferreira (the author) is independent of Ungar. The affiliation of Ferreira is the University of Aveiro, Portugal, whereas Ungar's is North Dakota State University [60]. Ferraira devotes several pages to gyrovectors and Ungar, and there does not seem to be any criticism of Ungar's work in there.
- "On the notion of gyrogroup" is a paper by Russian authors, clearly not associated with Ungar. Again there is apparently no criticism of the results of Ungar. On the contrary, they show that gyrogroups are a specific type of Bol loop, a fact reported in our own article.
- "The cogyrolines of Möbius gyrovector spaces are metric but not periodic". Author is affiliated to Afyon Kocatepe University.
- Further papers on gyrogroups/gyrovectors not authored by Ungar include [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] which show worldwide mathematical interest in the subject.

Ungar and his associates have published massively on the subject and all independent sources seem to recognise his primacy in this field. It thus seems reasonable to me that Ungar is given a high profile in the article. SpinningSpark 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark. James500 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is well past the point of being verifiable by Wikipedia editors. A lot of it must be deleted. Per Spinningspark, something to justify an article can likely be salvaged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Path We Chose (band)[edit]

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

Not notable band. Promotion written by a band member. No sign of any notabilty. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sourced to the like of imdb, press releases, youtube and primary. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article created by band member, and no decent independent sources whatsoever – just a couple of run-of-the-mill quotes from an article in The Street about how Connecticut hip hop is finally getting recognised, nothing about the group itself [71]. It's not clear whether the group is still active – their last YouTube posts were five years ago, and their official website is simply a holding page. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Street. "BY PR Newswire" duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know – even if it had been a better source, there's still no in-depth coverage of the group... I was just saying that's literally the best source I could find, and it's still not an acceptable one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm from CT and I can't find anything about them directly querying local sources, either. Markvs88 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JT McCormick[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a now-blocked editor. Nothing in article or online seems to count towards WP:GNG. CEO of a company of doubtful notability founded in 2014 and employing 29 people. Edwardx (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sourcing is promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources appear to pass as secondary WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camunda BPM[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Google finds no discernible significant independent coverage by reliable sources for "camunda bpm" or camunda process. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Try typing "Camunda" and you get more than 2 million pages only relating to this software. reliable sources for camunda. Thechouchou (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google only "Camunda", how do you know how many of the hits are about the software at all, let alone independent reliable sources with significant coverage of it? And how could a source have significant coverage while never mentioning BPM or processes?Largoplazo (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google news search only brings up press releases and blog entries. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that Rbworld528 has been blocked as a spam-only account. Sandstein 08:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Bundini[edit]

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

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Scads of photo spreads can be found but they have led to no coverage in reliable sources of the subject of those photo spreads. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Regarding the two major claims made for him in the lead,

I find no evidence that "Best Photo Model of the World" is a title conferred by anyone, this article being Google's only hit in a verbatim search for that phrase, "best photo model of the world". If it exists, it isn't noteworthy.
The International Modeling and Talent Association (IMTA) does present a "Male Commercial Model of the Year" award, but that phrase gets under 50 Google hits, so the award itself isn't particularly noteworthy. In addition, per this and this, neither of the 2014 recipients of the respective LA and NY presentations of that award was Rudy Bundini. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable, I cannot find references for it, except fro Gay Times. This is the article] before i TNT'd it and then after. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo, Rudy was using his birth name when he won the award. He changed his name when he finally reside in the US for personal purpose, I believe for some serious reasons. It could be life threatening situation. However, he wants to be recognized as Rudy Bundini now. I hope Wikipedia community can respect this that he will use Rudy Bundini name. Example, like The singer Pink, she might not use her real name for her stage name.

Could you please explain to me? Why is it winning the title best photo model of the world is not worthy? While people flew from all over the world to attend and compete. This is the the link, you can use the face recognition to see the title for the best photo model. I am creating this wikipedia page, it's not Rudy himself. I can put this on the references. However, someone removed my references that I have provided but I didn't have the chance to look at it yet. But I will create the references again. Here is the link when he won the title best photo model of the world and you can see Rudy was standing in the middle with the red title. http://www.bestmodeloftheworld.com/english/2013winners --Rbworld528 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBworld528[reply]

IMTA is prestigious competition. Many big celebrities were winning from IMTA. You can read from the following big names who won from IMTA. https://www.prweb.com/releases/imtamodelstalent/2014/prweb12061165.htm

IMTA is known in the industry for debuting the best new-to-market Talent and Models including Katie Holmes (IMTA 1993 & 1995), Ashton Kutcher (IMTA 1997), Eva Longoria (IMTA 1998), Ashley Greene (IMTA 2004), Aaron Paul (IMTA 1997), Elijah Wood (IMTA 1989), Riley Smith (IMTA 1997), Jessica Biel (IMTA 1994), Josh Duhamel (IMTA 1997), Rachel Boston (IMTA 1994), Cameron Ocasio (IMTA 2008), Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Model Jessica White (IMTA 1999), Vogue TV's Madeline Kragh (IMTA 2007), The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency's Brian Kehoe (IMTA 2001) and Elite's Heather Isaacson (IMTA 2008). For more IMTA Alumni, please see IMTA.com.

"Rudy Bundini was using his birth name when he won as a Male Commercial Model of the Year - IMD International, Medford, OR" https://www.pinterest.dk/pin/64246732159524385/

IMTA has an Instagram and it was giving the congratulation to Rudy. https://www.instagram.com/p/rIXfnrMGh2/?hl=en

I hope this explain your doubt about the titles that he won the competitions and he has large followers and big influences for many. So he deserves to have this wikipedia page for him --Rbworld528 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)rbworld[reply]

I don't know why you went through so much effort to demonstrate that IMTA is noteworthy. I didn't say it wasn't. I said I found no evidence that he'd won such an award from them, and I found evidence that he didn't.

Thousands of organizations host awards ceremonies that people attend and that give out awards with names like "Best X of the Year". Some of these ceremonies are nothing but vanity events that people pay to "compete" in and receive awards from. Others are genuine competitions but not well known. Just because I give an award called "Best Photo Model of the Year" doesn't mean that anyone has heard of this award or that it confers notability on every person I choose to give it to.

If Rudy Bundini changed his name because of a life-threatening situation, why are you outing him here? Are you trying to endanger him?

Anyway, I find no sources to cite stating that Misagh Daraei (the person identified in the Instagram pic) and Rudy Bundini are the same person. Without that, we can't say in the article that they're the same person, and we can't treat them as though they're the same person. If such a source can be provided, then the article would have to state explicitly that he was born Misagh Daraei and worked previously under that name. Largoplazo (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo, I wanted to make the point that you said IMTA is noteworthy,but otherwise many big celebrities were came from IMTA competition. I created this page because of doing a lot of research too. For someone who won international model competition who might be for regular people who don't pay attention in Fashion Industry is nothing but for someone in Fashion Industry, this is a great achievement. Not many top male models to be recognized in this world, but they are exists. Many people saw their faces but don't know their name. Many people mostly know female top models but not top male models. They need to be recognized as well. I found it that you are so hard on Rudy. I don't only follow Rudy's career but also other top male models and also top female models. I don't understand either why you keep removing Rudy's profile on references, that's to show people that he is legit and exists. You can check wikipedia profile of another Top Male Models such as David Gandy, Fabio Mancini, Sean O'Pry and some others, They put their profile on their references and many other links as well. Why did you cherry pick Rudy? I hope you don't hate him personally and bias. Most of those top male models have similar page as Rudy. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBWorld528[reply]

May I please ask you question? Are you in the fashion Industry? For people in the fashion industry might know which one is worthy and which one is not. People in fashion industry might not recognize the competition for sciences or vice versa... can we judge each of competition?

What I know, Rudy had to travel the world for the competition, required a special visa and it's international competition and not local competition.--Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)RBworld528[reply]

Dear Largoplazo, You didn't give me a choice right, to show you the same face pictures that Rudy and the person who won is the same. You put his page to proposed for deletion. What choice do I have? I didn't mention name, you did. Sorry, I had to remove the name. I provided what he has done, his profiles on the model agencies, magazines etc but you keep removing them. What prove do you want? If you give me your personal information, I will try to connect you to Rudy. If other top male models can have their wikipedia page, why not Rudy? I made the list of his achievements and provide the links but you keep removing them. I hope you can give him a fair judgment and let's support top male models, which are not many in this world. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) RBworld528[reply]

I know some top male models as well, not just Rudy, I connect to them as well. I follow Fashion Industry. I created this page because of fairness and I believe top male models need to be recognized more and we need to support their existent. In the fashion industry or entertainment industry, many people/celebrities don't use their real name. I hope people in Wikipedia will understand this more. --Rbworld528 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Rbworld528[reply]

Determination of what topics may be included in Wikipedia is determined not by the fashion industry but by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the ones I reference in my deletion nomination. People aren't deemed notable because they've had to travel and obtain a visa. International doesn't automatically mean notable per Wikipedia's terminology.

The photo spreads prove that he has had work as a photography model. They are his work as a model. What WP:N requires is evidence that reliable sources that are independent of him (in other words, not the people who are paying him) have, possibly because of his work, found him worth commenting on in depth. Heidi Klum isn't judged notable just because lots of people have included her in photo spreads but because people have taken note of her, and her work, and have devoted vast coverage to her. I have a job, and I could show you everything I've created during my job for people who've paid me to do it, but I wouldn't warrant an article in Wikipedia unless people independent of me had seen my work, found it noteworthy, and given it, and me, substantial coverage.

I already explained everything that has to be said about his name. It isn't about whether it's his real name, it's about whether there is a shred of evidence that the person with the other name is the same person. We have plenty of evidence that Dwayne Johnson and The Rock are the same person, so the article on him reflects his experience under both names. Here we have two names and no evidence that they're the same people. If he's the person that received that one IMTA award, then maybe those who voice an opinion here will judge that to be sufficient evidence of notability. But we don't even have evidence of that right now, just your assertion that it's the same person.

I didn't do any cherry-picking. I came across the article while patrolling new articles and I saw that it looked like it didn't comply with the inclusion guidelines. I especially noticed it because of the user name you chose, which certainly made it look like you were associated with him, as though you could be part of his publicity organization. As for articles about other models, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Often when someone points out articles they think are comparable, either they aren't (because, for example, they actually have lots of independent reliable sources to back them up), or they are and the other articles are also subject to deletion for the same reason.

Wikipedia is neutral, and it is not a soapbox for achieving goals like getting more recognition for male models or anybody else. It isn't a vehicle for gaining attention, but for documenting that which has already received attention—that's what the notability guidelines are all about. Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet inclusion criteria.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, and could have been hit as Template:Prod blp had it not been for article creator's habit of removing maintenance templates.

I can find no evidence to support the assertion that he was an Olympic swimmer. In fact, I could find no WP:RS coverage at all. The Gay Times article is purely promotional.

Comment: I note that article creator has been WP:INDEFfed. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mills (businessman)[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ingmar Bergman#Marriages and children. Consensus is that notability guidelines are not met, but that does not preclude a redirect to her father. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Bergman[edit]

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

Not notable as an actress in her own right, just minor roles in her father's films. Notability is not inherited. --wooden superman 10:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established per roles in notable films. That she might have gotten her roles via her father is irrelevant. WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films". None of her roles are significant. --wooden superman 07:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With having such a famous father, and in lieu of finding anything outside of that, then this should be redirected to Ingmar Bergman#Marriages and children in his article as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being an extra while having a famous father is enough to get an article on this project? Really? This is an obvious case of WP:NOTINHERITED. This actress also fails WP:NACTOR as, being an extra, none of her roles were "significant." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing she has done makes her notable, does not become notable because of notable parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or Flight (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only four reviews mentioned, the fourth (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all of these episodes of Supergirl nominated for deletion today; I don't know this show and generally don't like having articles on individual episodes of shows like this, but "exactly 3 reviews in WP:RS" is a horrific reason to ask for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Faced[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate the current title, and may file a WP:RM later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better Angels (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Kailash29792, it would be nice if you explained why you believe TV Fanatic (TVF) does not meet WP:RS (does its "About us" page give concern?) as this appears to be a key point in your nomination of this, and another 12(?) afds (it may have been appropriate to raise your concerns about TVF on the article talkpage and WPTV project talkpage before coming to afd?), anyway, even if the TVF review is discounted, it still leaves two reviews that is enough for a standalone article? note: i am not going to add this comment to the other afds, editors may assume that it also applies to them. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, apart from sourcing, one reason I nominated this for deletion is because of its lack of comprehensiveness and scope, as wells as prominent focus on the plot only. Ditto for the other Supergirl episode AfDs. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunter (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falling (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kailash29792, did you do a WP:BEFORE job before nominating this article for deletion? The current state of an article is not what matters when it comes to WP:Notability. This Supergirl episode is one of the more applauded episodes from the series. I would see about cleaning up the article and expanding it, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. I could always recreate the article if it's deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only two reviews mentioned, the second (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, Justice and the American Way (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarro (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reviews from reliable sources count as multiple. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Childish Things (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This episode has what it takes: content, sources and reviews. gidonb (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Bonds[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again I'd be happy with a move to include the series name in the article title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This episode has what it takes: content, sources and reviews. gidonb (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Takeover (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Girl Who Has Everything (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Supergirl). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple reliable sources reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This episode has what it takes: content, sources and reviews. gidonb (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Trade Watch (Australia)[edit]

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

No working references. No longer exists. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find sufficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG - perhaps redirect to and merge with Global Trade Watch but while the two organisations have the same objectives I am not sure it is actually a related organisation - perhaps that is the extent of the merge to say just that. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linq3[edit]

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

promotional article for unimportant company. Claims a technical innovation, but it's actually pretty trivial, and there is no indication that it is unique. The references are either from its own site, or press releasers from local business journals--a notoriously undiscriminating type of source, or routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotion, no evident notability. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There reference which verify its existence, but they all fall well short of WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company's technology is a big deal in the lottery industry, which is very large - lots of Americans play it. Completely turning the way that people play the lottery on their head w/ modernization is quite notable, in my opinion. There are plenty of these sources, too, in my opinion. (14 at last count - including Time Magazine, Georgia Business Daily, Progressive Grocer [industry trade publication], etc.). This article is encyclopedic because it should be noted who invented this transformative lottery technology. Thanks for considering my views. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Michael Powerhouse (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete. Utter corporate spam crap with gems like created the technology that allows people to and Five plays on the Lottery Cards cost ten dollars., totally fails WP:SPIP. References are the usual promotional churnalistic pieces or company announcements, totally fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor company with 48 employers "that creates new products that expand the way consumers access and play the lottery", notability is not evident and the article is promotional WP:ARTSPAM. Previously deleted on 2018-04-09 under G11. Sam Sailor 08:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertisement or promotion. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. JimRenge (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbelsonTaylor[edit]

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

Promotional article on a probably non notable advertising agency. The promotionalism consists of multiple quotes from the company's staff, excessively detailed listing of executives, a list of minor awards for specific advertisements, a celebration of the importance of one particular rather unimpressive ad. The references consist of the expected promotional press releases and announcements. This is essentially the same as what the company would write as an advertisement for itself. It tells what the company wants the readers to know-- and that is the definition of promotionalism . It would do well for their own web site--and thats a good indication of what should not be in WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTPROMO. I don't see any sources passing WP:CORPDEPTH either Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with DGG that the article is promotional, I started to neutralize it, but most of the content is referenced by either their corporate page or sources with questionable independence or reliability. Bloomberg's profile is a valid source, but not enough. My problem with the only claim of notability is that it's sourced by an article written by Illinois Business Daily, they have written a couple more articles on the firm including a non-notable award [72]. The tone of the article that supports the claim that the firm is the "world's largest independent full-service advertising agency that focuses exclusively on health & wellness" suggests that it might be a press release There are very few reliable sources that mention the subject but there is no in depth coverage. I could also find an article about an award written in the Chicago Tribune but again the award is not notable and no in depth coverage. In my opinion it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG so there is no point in trying to rewrite the article to remove the promotional material. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From WP:CORP, per WP:ORGIN, "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." The article currently has 19 sources ranging from Bloomberg, PharmaVOICE, Illinois Business Daily, and MM&M - Medical Marketing and Media. These outlets are unrelated to AbelsonTaylor. Secondly, the opening paragraph states clearly why it's notable: "largest independent health and wellness advertising agency in the world." Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC) - NEW COMMENT 9/20: I found an in-depth article about the company: http://www.medadnews-digital.com/medadnews/april_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1379162#articleId1379162 I will be using it in the article today w/ new edits. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Michael Powerhouse (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization...Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." Lots of sources are cited but they don't have any real depth. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that the new alleged "in-depth article" is an interview with the CEO allowed where he is to unashamedly promote his ad agency. Totally fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter spam crap with gems like AbelsonTaylor's colleagues have voted them the Most Creative Agency 11 times and the Most Admired 6 times, fails WP:SPIP. References are the usual promotional churnalistic pieces, totally fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkerson[edit]

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

This is a vanity article with promotional links and mentions.. The specified person is one of many youtubers Unaccountably kept in July 2017; didn't really meet our standards then and certainly doesn't meet them now. . The sources are just mentions, or interviews where she says whatever she wants to. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a second, repetitive nomination by DGG, advancing the same tired 'reasons' as with his first AfD nomination (which resulted in Keep) -- that the subject is a YouTuber (not a reason for deletion), that this is a vanity article (more like DGG simply doesn't like it. YouTube is proving to be a powerful new medium, and Wilkerson is one of its stars, getting millions of views, and helping all kinds of do-it-yourselfers finish many projects (including myself -- I'm a handyman and her advice is sound and helpful). She's received plenty of coverage in traditional media which are reliable and in-depth, not mere mentions as DGG suggests, with coverage of her life and her projects such as in Popular Mechanics and also here with coverage here and even international coverage and also here in Australia and in Woodworkers Journal. Notable person who clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC) While pageviews is not an official reason for inclusion, I'd just like to point out that Wilkerson gets 81 pageviews per day, on average, over the past 90 days, and for me, it's a sign that people out there are interested in who she is and what she does, which is usually a strong sign that she belongs in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - definitley passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO per Tomwsulcer. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the current sourcing, subject meets WP:GNG and potentially WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:GNG standards, there are any number of people posting YouTube videos. They don't merit Wikipedia articles. Editors have had a year to improve this and pointedly have not. W C M_email 09:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nongnakham F.C.[edit]

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

Sources in the do not demonstrate notability via the GNG (see WP:NTEAM) and better sources could not be found. References are either not reliable, not significant, or not independent. I searched but could'nt find anything better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This team have website itself. http://nongnakhamfc.com/main/%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%9B%E0%B9%87%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B2/. It look like professional football team. I think this team can write in Wiki Aquaelfin (talk) 7:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. per nomination. Just now I tried scouring for any sources outside the club website but found none. Wikipedia football notability criteria clearly not met. Techy Halnerd (speak) 06:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Public source of 2018 Thailand Amateur League North Eastern Region all teams. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/th/features/iisaanbaanehaa-18-thiimemecchrliikochniisaantnbn?page=0%2C3 Aquaelfin (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club fail Wikipedia football notability criteria (have never played in a national cup competition) and fail WP:GNG as well due to a lack of sources about the club. Article creator Aquaelfin has been warned for removing the AfD notice on the article, and user's talk page is a litany of PROD/AfD notices for creating articles on teams that don't meet the criteria. Dougal18 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (have never played in a national cup competition). You are bastard! . You would like this player from Amateur Club !! It doesn't make sense. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read WP:CIVIL please before calling people bastards. Nongnakham F.C. being amateur isn't the issue. It's the lack of sources about the team that's the issue. Dougal18 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well, this got fun. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FOOTYN. SportingFlyer talk 20:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Covered in two paragraphs in the FourFourTwo.com piece.[73] The National News Bureau piece[74] is routine coverage of the club's CSR activities. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boson (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Pruitt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON, because of no national awards or regular season NFL game action.

The only news coverage cited here and found elsewhere is WP:ROUTINE for an under-the-radar college football player who got an NFL free agent contract, such as this feature article in the local newspaper during his college career, as well as news articles about signing, getting injured, and being released from the New Orleans Saints.

Two other AfDs of San Jose State football players De'Leon Eskridge and Chandler Jones concluded with similar results. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable football player. He fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Some routine sports reporting is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is presented, it seems there is no notability to the career at this point. It's possible that he could have achieved notability through college play, but I see no indication of that. Instead, it looks like a promotional page for someone attempting to make it in the NFL instead of an encyclopedia article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator states, Pruitt does not pass WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON both of which are inclusionary rather than exclusionary standards. The nomination overlooks WP:GNG, but I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources of the type needed to satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Frugoli[edit]

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

Recent article. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's author. I wasn't 100% confident myself that the subject qualified as notable, and will not oppose this deletion nomination, though I am not sure I understand how the article's "recentness" bears on the subject's notability (?). A loose noose (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't relate to notability. It's just a note to say the article has not been around for along time, which would have likely subjected it to more scrutiny.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... But that seems like less of an argument and more of an innuendo: "This article hasn't been around long enough to have been thoroughly scrutinized, so let's begin with the assumption that it might be a good candidate for deletion, before we even begin looking at its sources." Shouldn't you begin by saying, "The sources in this article do not adequately convey the subject's notability" if that, in fact, is what you believe to be true? Arguing to the age of the article is like an ad hominem attack: it isn't actually relevant, though maybe it is just too tempting not to mention it. What if we had to stick to the article and its sources rather than its age or what color it is or how fast it can run? I am not saying the sources here convey notability, I am saying aren't they supposed to be the thing that matters? Or would you rather slip poison in my tea? A loose noose (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , you found me out--I'm CIA. The article age comment is a code I use to signal my comrades in an undisclosed location. Seriously now, ad hominem ("against the man") attacks are not possible on ideas. That's just fallacious. You might be reading too much into it. For example new articles have AFC and the new articles feed for a reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, my searches are turning up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Come on, it isn't that hard to find something on her, even if you don't think it is enough to qualify her as notable! A loose noose (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governors Cup Lagos Tennis[edit]

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

This article does not meet an Tennis Guideline notability, nor does it meet NSport notability. The ITF Futures events are minor-minor league tennis. That's not a typo. The ATP Tour that we see on tv is the major leagues. Then the Challenger Tour is the minor league. By consensus, we have determined that the Challenger Tour, though a minor league, is notable enough for tournament inclusion. The minor-minor ITF tour is not. This is shown in our guidelines. There are over 600 mens low level ITF tournaments alone... another 500+ for the women. Tournament winners go home with as little as a $1000. When these ITF Futures players eventually graduate to playing in the minor leagues like the ATP Challengers or WTA 125ks, they still aren't notable... not unless they actually win the title. This article should be deleted and if in the future it becomes a notable Challenger event, it can be recreated, but not withe the minir-minor league ITF info. Even the sources say the hopeful inaugural tournament is still 18 months away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:CRYSTALBALL. It isn't certain that this event even becomes a Challenger event. Not a notable event whatsoever for now. Maybe recreate if it becomes notable in a year or two. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets GNG, whatever CRYSTALBALL concern can be removed ONLY IF they do not add value to the article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Specific notability guidelines for tournaments articles are not cast in stone. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: HandsomeBoy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep. It has significant press coverage within the country.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GNG always trumps any Wiki-project, but does that GNG also cover the double winners of every year of this minor league tournament? I checked their website and they don't even find it notable to list past winners. They do mention a couple past winners if they happen to later make it to the ATP or WTA tour level. You can bet that if it ever does make it to a Challenger level event and they do start listing winners, that it will only be Challenger winners only. The futures winners will be dropped by the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most notable and top priority Nigerian events/tournaments/articles have difficulty maintaining an online record for themselves, I know this because I have been documenting alot of such on Wikipedia for years. It is an African thing, thank God that is changing now. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with an encyclopedia that prides itself on sourcing, that makes it tough to include those results here if they aren't notable enough even from the event itself. I don't know Nigerian so I can't really tell about GNG. Perhaps it is covered in the largest newspapers there which would give it a thumbs up on GNG. But I do know tennis, and on a tennis scale and Wikipedia Tennis Project scale it's not remotely notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find coverage that isn't either WP:ROUTINE or just a passing mention, I don't belewve GNG is met but I'm going to wait a bit longer before !voting. Iffy★Chat -- 08:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: Per Iffy, which sources do you believe are enough to qualify for significant press coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE?

In countries like the US, France, Australia, etc. where the top tennis players are opportuned to participate numerous grand slams and masters series, the challenge and future events might be of little value, so I can understand why the consensus among WP:TENNIS will be that articles on futures and challenge tournamnet shouldn't even be created. However, for African players, tennis is an important game amongst ourselves and it is a tournament such as this that provides the opportunity for top African players to play among themselves and against medium-level/emerging foreign players. Here are a few sources in highest level Nigerian newspapers, used as a reference point for top seed Nigerian women tennis player, Zimbabwean top players, medium of assesing Nigerian Tennis, interest from some popular tennis stars, ranked as one of the biggest in Africa, tournament for emerging players worldwide, this is a critique review, but such reviews only come when you are notable, Nigeria's biggest tourist atttraction, rated high by the government, spectators are paying to watch the games, Likened to an historical competition, etc. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One major correction. We do create tournaments for the minor league ATP Challenger events. Even though they are the minor leagues and aren't shown on tv or reported much in the news, we do create them. But Tennis Project has drawn the line at the minor-minor league tournaments such as the ITF Futures. If the Nigerian event "ever" makes it to the minor league Challenger tour, there are no issues at all with Tennis Project. But right now it one of more than a thousand other tiny events. If it passes GNG because of special circumstances, then that's fine. But that would be for GNG notability, not for Tennis Project notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator agrees it does not meet WP:NTENNIS. They are arguing for GNG. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that this is a big tourist attraction. The source that claims this doesn't cite any figures (e.g. attendance). Some of those other sources are WP:ROUTINE (just reporting that the event is happening and the results). Others are not WP:RELIABLE (Nadal is not coming to play at the tournament, even if it becomes a Challenger; 540 players are not going to compete in the event. It's more like ~32.). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just some clarification, My stance was that I understand why some editors will think it does not meet WP:TENNIS, that does not mean I agree with it, I can't totally agree to a discussion I wasn't part of. I was just trying to be diplomatic about my rationale, seeing things from all angle. And are you really calling Vanguard (Nigeria) an unreliable source?? Just because you don't like how they write their publications does not mean they are not rs. Be specific about which of the sources I posted are unreliable. The information above was from Vanguard (Nigeria), The_Guardian_(Nigeria), P.M._News, The_Nation_(Nigeria), Media Trust and The Eagle newspaper, so which of those sources are unreliable? Also, there is a long qualification process for many unseeded players before the first round of the main tournament. I have at least 2 references of different editions that show that more than 32 players usually participate. So it is incorrect to say that only approximately 32 players take part in it.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Vanguard source: "The Governor’s Cup, an ITF sanctioned Future’s tournament, according to them, will now be upgraded to a Challenger Series event. And that, according to them will attract the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and the Williams sisters to Nigeria." That is not true. None of those players have played in a Challenger tournament in the past decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated comment: Infact I think the current system makes it impossible to have a modest universal representation of tennis players and tournaments, as only the very best of the best will be eligible to have articles on Wikipedia. I am aware the football WikiProject have a consensus that stipulates that as soon as a league is a professional league, then the league and its players are likely to be notable if sources are found. This ensures that even if the quality of football isn't so great, just by being a professional league, they may be good for WP. But I feel like the present system of tennis WikiProject will exclude alot of African players from WP (except South Africa). Nowonder there is currently no active Nigerian tennis player with a WP article, and I'm sure that is the same for many other African countries. If I was part of the RFC that led to the consensus, I would have had alot to say on it, so I would not say I totally agree that this tennis event article fails WP:NTENNIS.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are Nigerian tennis players that meet WP:NTENNIS if they have played matches as part of the Nigerian Davis Cup or Fed Cup teams. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related discussion on - Talk:Governors Cup Lagos Open. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS because of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources provided are inaccurate (not WP:RELIABLE), routine coverage announcing the event or reporting the results (WP:ROUTINE), and/or promotional in nature (WP:QUESTIONABLE). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets GNG, and has press coverage.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm on the fence here with as this does not meet WP:NTENNIS because its a minor-minor tournament as people don't add these sort of articles in terms of notability, but then again this is successful under the WP:GNG. So I am going to wait until further talk on this discussion until I make my decision for now. Not Homura (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. Opinions are split. There is consensus to not keep the article, but not consensus to delete it. This is the compromise. Content may be merged from history per editorial discretion. Sandstein 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Raymar[edit]

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

Unelected official (fails WP:NPOL), no significant coverage (fails WP:GNG), previously nominated for deletion in 2008 and closed as no consensus due to confusion. Failed judicial nominees typically aren't notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but this is based entirely on primary sources that do not count as valid support for notability. If he could be shown to pass WP:GNG, then this would be a different matter — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' I find that nominees to the several circuit courts of appeals are always signficant, regardless of media coverage, because that such nominations tend to greatly reflect the policies of the President of the United States and of the United States Senate, considering that confirmation hearings are most usually conducted. Furthermore, proper coverage could possibly be found in the records of the United States Senate. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one may merely require better sourcing. (There is a weird thing where President Clinton nominates Raymar, then decides to give the judgeship to the sister of his pal Donald Trump, instead. politics is stranger than fiction.) Alternative merge target is Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Former deputy attorney general of New Jersey and was the subject of a major tussle of the upper house of a national legislature. Jarvishunt (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that says this makes him notable. No Deputy State AGs are notable (fails WP:NPOL) – and what "major tussle"? All that happened was the GOP didn't want an impeached president to have a nomination go through. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. While certainly interesting that this confirmation hearing was never held (as is the anecdote that Maryanne Trump Barry was actually appointed) - this is a BLP1E situation with not that much coverage. The subject of this article does come close to having SIGCOV. It is also not much of a tussle - the Senate Judiciary Committee simply didn't schedule a hearing. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOM COMMENT -- Support Redirect (or merge) per above Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

selective merge to Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies. Made time to run some pretty thorough searches, concluded that: the appointment thing happened, it got covered then and since, but there is surprisingly little sourcing for any other aspect of his life or career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to my standards, he passes. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a clear WP:GNG fail as it's currently sourced and due to a lack of sources existing, which isn't really discussed by keep voters. Three of the six sources are primary. The other three are deadlinks, don't mention him, or are behind a paywall I can't access, but the article appears to lump in several judges based on the article title. A before search brings up nothing I can see that would pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His roles as a state official and a failed federal judicial nomination where his nomination was never considered, all of which is covered with sources in the article, with additional coverage in books (see here), newspapers and magazines using the links provided here, all establish notability per WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's barely mentioned in that book - three short paragraphs which feature two direct quotes. SportingFlyer talk 05:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see anything here that passes NPOL. State deputy AGs do not get auto-notability, neither do failed judicial nominees. Bill Clinton replacing this nominee with Trump's sister is just trivia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed judicial nominees are not default notable, so there is nothing truly notable about Raymar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theeb Alyami[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, that event being this person's recent and tragic death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' It's a little weird to invoke BLP1E for an individual who is only known because of his unusual death. Nevertheless, there's no indication that he received the sort of in-depth coverage needed to build an article beyond the current couple of sentences and in particular, the current references contain basically no biographical info. Pichpich (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Per WP:NOTNEWS, we need to consider the "enduring notability of persons and events", and there is nothing to suggest that there is any inherent and lasting notability for the person concerned. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article is written with the date lacking a year it shouts "this is a news article, not encyclopedic". Though that problem could be fized easily, it is systematic that the article itself is not encyclopedic nor is its subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goria dance[edit]

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

WP:BARE (has 1 source, which I already added to Goria Puja) and WP:NOTDICDEF (1.5 unbolstered sentences saying what it is, and ditto) seem to apply here. I was able to already fold the 1.5 sentences of this 5.5+ year-old article into the broader Goria Puja (also a stub but not quite as short). Thinking Delete since there isn't much substance for it to be a redirect etc. but I'm not hyper-opposed should doing that be seen as better TheTiksiBranch (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Goria puja - the dance is not a well-known style of dance and probably does not merit its own article. Vorbee (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source cited has a lot of details on the performance of the dance so the page is clearly capable of being expanded. Furhter possible sources include;
- Treatise on traditional social institutions of the Tripuri community discusses the dance. Unfortunately, only snippet view of the book is available so it is not easy to assess exactly how much information is there, but this snippet shows the author discussing the dance's popularity in neighbouring regions so it has more than a passing mention.
- Likewise snippets from The North-East General Knowledge indicate it has non-trivial coverage (from the fact it has a section heading in the book).
- The scholarly paper "Folk Music and Dances of Tripura" has a lengthy section over two pages on the dance. SpinningSpark 10:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable tribal dance from Tripura, with enough coverage in English media despite the local language not being English see WP:BIAS. User:Spinningspark has already presented some good sources to claim the notability that I support. In addition, here are some more from Google books. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: A-D". Global Vision – via Google Books.
^ Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: R-Z". Global Vision – via Google Books.
^ Dutta, Subrata Kumar (1 January 2005). "Uprooted Reangs: Strangers in Their Motherland". Akansha Publishing House – via Google Books.
^ Singh, Kumar Suresh; India, Anthropological Survey of (25 September 1995). "People of India". Anthropological Survey of India – via Google Books.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Criss[edit]

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

Straightforward GNG fail. I found one source in a search, published in the "Chestnut Hill Local" news. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Dubreuiel[edit]

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

GNG fail. No RS found in search. Tagged for notability since 2010. (I am very curious also to know what the "amplification" section means.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Levin (artist)[edit]

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

First of all there is a Dana Levin (poet) who generates lots of results in a search for sources. This Dana Levin does not seem to meet NARTIST. The sources are so poor that I am not sure if she meets GNG either. Items like the "Interview with Artist/Teacher Dana Levin" by Art Renewal Center are not RS as it is an interview and it is about a scholarship they gave her. Most other sources given are exhibition blurbs (not independent) or passing mentions. I could not find enough in a search to establish notability, although I could be wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if this is a hoax, but the first four refs that I attempted to navigate to were no good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find only two working sources in the article, one an art gallery profile and the other an alumni show. Neither are reliable sources. Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot is not a reason for deletion. I have added the archive URLs for the pages that could not be found, except one, that I marked as a dead link. Please review the sources. Tweaking a search to exclude the poet and require painter yields some results for me; https://fineartconnoisseur.com/2015/12/hidden-behind-reality/ for example. --Vexations (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That finaeartconnoisseur article is made up of single sentences about the artist, followed by long quotes of the artists. It is pretty close to an interview. I'm pretty sure it's paid promotion, as it ends with an explicit suggestion to visit danalevin.com, the sister site in the masthead is artmarketing.com, and the advertise with us page of the FAC site says they will assist with not just ads, but "tactical placements". So, it's not RS. Vexations you are usually spot on, bang on and exactly right, but I think not in this case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet decided whether I think the sources can sustain an article. I am very suspicious of the wacky Art Renewal Center and their promotional efforts, and I dislike abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes more than just about anyone. But I am a firm proponent of considering the sources (carefully). We should not delete an article because it has dead links and we should not casually dismiss the subject as "yields no results in a google search" when that is demonstrably not true. That the source I found in about ten seconds is not great may be true (although it appears to have the kind of editorial oversight we require from RSes), but it does proves that sources can be found. This is just due diligence, per WP:BEFORE. In stead of googling for Dana Levin without quotes, try "Dana Levin" ~artist -poet, for example. --Vexations (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am aware of BEFORE and how to do a boolean search in Google. I did my due diligence, and as I point out in the nom, I searched not for the poet but for the artist with a search very similar to what you suggest. Where did you see me say "yields no results in a google search"? What I said is " I could not find enough in a search to establish notability," which I believe is still the case. The coverage is minor. Pinging @Theredproject: for his thoughts using private art school exhibitions like the Florence Academy as sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all at the top of this thread. --Vexations (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fence Cutter (Band)[edit]

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

No clear indication of notability; fails WP:NBAND. I'm not finding any non-self published reliable sources. Aspening (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publication - The band Fence Cutter is a regional band with significant popularity within the hardcore seen of the Central and Northeast Coast of the United States. This popularity can not presently be measured by past based metrics of units sold or radio play or seats sold at large venues. All these metrics are becoming obsolete due to social media’s just-in-time distribution of music and the rise of distributed small venues. Please except this article in lieu of the of present forces in the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholumbenruvin (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are facebook page and bandcamp. reddogsix (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBAND. I can't find any independent or reliable sources via Google. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources in the article to support a claim of notability and nothing reliable and verifiable that I could find in a Google search that would put this over the top. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBAND, was unable to find independent not self published references to existence. Dmartin969 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user who created the article posted this to their talk page. Including here as it acts as their argument against deletion:

The band Fence Cutter is a regional band with significant popularity within the hardcore seen of the Central and Northeast Coast of the United States. This popularity can not presently be measured by past based metrics of units sold or radio play or seats sold at large venues. All these metrics are becoming obsolete due to social media’s just-in-time distribution of music and the rise of distributed small venues. Please except this article in lieu of the of present forces in the music industry. Sholumbenruvin (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD 38801 b[edit]

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

It exists, next please. Nothing notable that I can see. Habitable zone? Something, but not so very rare. No popular coverage outside of the standard databases. The only specific technical publication is the discovery paper, although a handful of other journals mention it as one of many objects in lists. Therefore, fails WP:NASTCRIT. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Response To Lithopsian and a general message for other users who come to this discussion: "It exists, next please"? No need to take an antagonistic approach to begin your input. "Habitable zone?", I can understand you questioning this, but at the same time, it is never once claimed in the article that the planet being located within the habitable zone of it's system makes it more noteworthy. As for everything else you said, I respond to that as follows... If HD 38801 b doesn't meet the requirements for existing as a stand alone article than how come this, this, this, this and all the other short, small articles about astronomical objects that one could pick at random do? Failing to meet WP:NASTCRIT in one way or another isn't exclusive to the article in question. And of course if they don't meet the criteria then why not nominate them for deletion as well. If it is not clear what I am trying to illustrate, it's this, HD 38801 b is an article in an uncountable sea of short 1 to 2 paragraph articles about obscure astronomical objects that one would most likely only come across via a list, and that don't meet WP:NASTCRIT. By saying that HD 38801 b should be deleted, you in a way create a divergence of conclusions / consensuses that one should come to: This first of which being that if this article for the reasons you stated is problematic then delete it, along with all others like it (as i pointed out) and rid the site of hundreds of articles that were fine prior to the existence of the one I have recently introduced ; Or Keep the article and the others like it, and change the guideline (If of course there isn't a WP:MASSCREATION decision that supersedes WP:NASTCRIT about certain objects like these anyway, but I'm not sure). I know that This is a difficult decision to come to a conclusion for, but understand that more is being discussed here, that more is at stake, and that WP guidelines can be changed and are/should be set only in accordance with the community's wishes (WP:PG), which in this case don't seem to conflict with what I'm advocating for / proposing. WP:NASTCRIT seems to have been ignored by everyone who has made or contributed to an article on an obscure astronomical object, and yet the website has fared well, so changing it shouldn't do any harm. This is all just my opinion though and I would greatly appreciate it if as many users as possible gave their input in this discussion.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this personally. It is well-documented but often forgotten that WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. WP:WAX explains that the existence of other non-notable (in a particular editor's opinion) articles does not justify keeping this non-notable article. WP:NASTCRIT (and the whole of WP:NASTRO) has been extensively discussed and occasionally revised; it gives specific criteria for which of the billions of documented astronomical objects are considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so explaining why this article meets those criteria is a good way to have it kept but complaining about the policy or its application to other articles isn't. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue, now having looked at WP:NASTCRIT again, and doing more research, that HD 38801 b meets criteria 3: "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone. http://exoplorer.org/en/exoplanets/hd-38801-b. The 1st of these 2 new sources seemed like it might have allowed this object to meet criteria 3. There's also the information that Graeme Bartlett mentioned which I think may have been overlooked. Basically, I think there is evidence for this object being notable. Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The sources I'm seeing are basically just indiscriminate catalogues rather than anything that would provide WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking for references I find https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.08329.pdf (published [75]) which has several paragraphs on this planet and its star. The original discovery paper is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/550/meta or https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1779 and this has substantial content. So the topic will meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware this source was out there, this refutes the claim that this topic doesn't meet WP:NASTCRIT by the way. Thank you.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery paper doesn't really count for notability since it's not independent coverage. The secondary mention in the first review is pretty minor though HD 38801 b’s low eccentricity, the authors note, is of special interest since it cannot be explained by tidal interaction with its host star since the latter’s radius of 2.5 R⊙ is too small to effectively circularize the planet’s intermediate orbit. I'm not sure if that really fulfills GNG or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there's no question weather this meets WP:GNG, I think it does due to the fact that it is mentioned so much and there seems to be significant coverage on it, the greater controversy lies where we argue whether HD 38801 b meets WP:NASTCRIT which is like a more specific WP:GNG, but for astronomical objects. (I would also argue that it meets WP:NASTCRIT)Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything presented here that would satisfy NASTCRIT nor that it is mentioned a lot since pretty much everything is WP:INDISCRIMINATE mention if anything. The strongest thing is very brief mention in a secondary source, but I'd say that's really satisfying WP:DUE for inclusion in a different article rather than satisfying any kind of notability unless that piece of information is expanded by another source in terms of importance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that is does meet WP:NASTCRIT (specifically criterion 3) per my last response to Lithopsian. I argue for this because the 1st source i provide (http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone.) is an article that mentions a number of exoplanets within the habitable zone (Including HD 38801 b). This source may not seem like a whole lot, but it does however establish that HD 38801 b would then be apart of a small, exclusive group of exoplanets that appear to, and do in fact merit notability and extra attention both outside and inside of Wikipedia. We even have a list of potentially habitable exoplanets (that does need expansion) that this and other planets could be added to.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, this are yet again WP:DUE arguments, but not making a case for notability. For NASTCRIT, we do not have the in-depth coverage needed by multiple independent sources. Pretty much the only thing we have is the review very briefly mentioning eccentricity. That alone isn't enough for notability. Had the review gone in to more depth beyond passing mention maybe, but it's not very convincing when that is the sole strong source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but per SpinningSpark this planet's low eccentricity values provide notability. (He also gave a new source to my knowledge)Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source Graeme Bartlett brought up in this thread that we've been discussing already (i.e., zero eccentricity), so it's not new. It's also pretty weak in terms of WP:SCIRS too. A single primary research article carries different weight depending on topic, but it's generally pretty low-tier compared to reviews, books, etc. That's not enough to establish notability, and we haven't really been left with anything else that begins to approach notability in this AfD to-date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this paper, "HD 38801 b ... features peculiar zero values of eccentricity and periastron longitude ... such a low value of eccentricity at such intermediate distances from the host star ... cannot yet be explained by tidal circularization and therefore represents an interesting conundrum." This planet is thus more interesting than merely "it exists". The source explicitly says it is interesting. SpinningSpark 11:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been covered in enough sources to satisfy GNG. Leo1pard (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TriPoint Global Equities[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRITE, which is stricter than WP:GNG. The Forbes, CrowdFund Insider and Reuters sources do not provide in-depth coverage. The CabotWealth, Fatburger, and SeekingAlpha sources are insufficiently independent, and the Benzinga coverage appears to be a textbook case of a company-sponsored article in a secondary source as covered at WP:ORGCRITE due to the article's reliance on direct quotes from the company's promotional material. _signed,Rosguill^talk 22:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, forbes source is also from a contributor, so unreliable. Unremarkable company will no indepth coverage in sources, only mentions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. A prior version of the article (which is referenced) has been restored. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology & Education (NIPTE)[edit]

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

All useful content and references have been removed from the article Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reverted removal of references by Rls231 in a "Good Faith" effort to stream line article. Article now referenced and meets our standards for inclusion.ShoesssS ^Talk 15:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination now the article has been restored. Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Everybody agrees except for a wall-of-texting, likely WP:COI, WP:SPA. Sandstein 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMandarin[edit]

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

This appears to be an unremarkable language school and the article makes no claims to notability. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do.

While fixable, the content appears to me to be promotional, e.g. by listing the days and times of classes. Both references provided are dead links. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable language school. Missing all sorts of secondary sources that would indicate importance. I've scrubbed out the specific courses and rewrote that paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have reverted by edits. So I have tagged this as advertising, to deal with verbiage like "Classes meet two weekday evenings from 7pm to 9pm at the Jing'an Temple campus. New courses start monthly" and "EasyMandarin is located at 172 Yuyuan Road, Suite 1501 (near Wanhangdu Road) in Shanghai, China. The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote for now given that citations have been provided independent sources Language magazine, The Beijinger and Time Out Shanghai. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reference to top publication (Time Out Magazine) praising the school has been added (to show notability) ~~and dead links have been removed~~. Dead links updated using Wayback Machine archive. This article has been included since 2010 and when the article was created the debate already took place whether it is a school or a organization. Wikipedia administrators have already agreed that it is a school and thus allowed publication. Removed advertising verbiage as noted by editor, AngusWOOF. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF Thank you for your feedback. I have since edited the page based on your feedback. I only left the part "The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7" since this is a local landmark and is related and relevant to this article, and I do not believe it is advertising verbiage. I hope you will reconsider and help remove this pages "marked for deletion" status. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkertony Can you find another publication that discusses the school? Time Out can be one, but really need another for the multiple sources in order for it to meet WP:GNG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF Yes, there are several others. This link is for The Beijinger (a very popular online publication) talking about the school - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-tests. Will find more and add to the page in the upcoming days. Unfortunately the Wikipedia page was not updated in a long time and the previous reference links were dead - thank you for pointing that out. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" template from the page? Thank you:)Parkertony (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like a brochure though with the course titles being bolded. Did you see the version I rewrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=859372215&oldid=859371709 That would have satisfied the advertising tone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will need an article that has significant coverage like this one for Victoria Shanghai Academy from South China Morning Post [76] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijinger is a Listings magazine so not sure how reliable it is for being independent of the advertisers they list. ~~Could someone look up the article and check whether it has significant coverage on the school? Links are timing out for me.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links now work. Striking previous comment. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also potential confusion with Easy Mandarin UK in Belgravia [77] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF I re-implemented your edit as you requested and agree that it removes the advertising tone and looks less brochure like. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" banner if okay with you? Thank you. I'll fix the dead link soon with Wayback Machine. Parkertony (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more notable references for the page after the weekend in the upcoming days. I will also re-publish some of the dead reference links that I found on Wayback Machine. Could someone please advise on best practices using Wayback Machine archived reference links? Parkertony (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Parkertony (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkertony For the wayback ones, you can post the bare links here and in the article, and we can convert them to the archive citation format later. Right now you need to provide more RS citations to keep the article around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOFAdded back dead link reference to comprehensive interview with school founder by radio86.com (radio86.com was acquired by https://gbtimes.com/). This is significant school coverage; however, it is in the Danish language (audio is in English). Could you please help convert for archive citation format? Thank you. Dead link is http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai , Wayback archive with interview audio can be found with the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120313001140/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai.Parkertony (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added StudyTravel Magazine reference. It loads as a Microsoft Azure PDF. Not sure how to cite properly, but would look like this: Hancox, Nicola (January 2018). "China" (PDF) StudyTravel Magazine p. 50-51 Retrieved 17 September 2018. Parkertony (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the citations, yes, that's close enough. Curb Safe Charmer do you have any concerns on the magazine sources added? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF It appears that Curb_Safe_Charmer is on holiday as written on his user page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer. Would you consider a "keep" vote in order to reach a consensus? Or, if other editors are interested, please chime in. When Curb_Safe_Charmer added this AfD he said it was "fixable", and I do believe his issues were addressed - removed promotional verbiage, currently appears to meet WP:GNG by restoring dead link citations and adding 3 new citations. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would tag this as G11 in it's current state. I am not convinced on it's notability and think it fails WP:NCORP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frayae Could you please provide examples of why you would tag this as G11? What is not written in the neutral tone? WP:G11 states that it is better to replace content with text written from a neutral point of view than to delete the article. Why are you not convinced of notability? It has 5 references, including industry magazines and one from a well-known publisher, Time Out Magazine.Parkertony (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article including the title is advertorial. If you replace the entire article then I may reconsider. Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD section is meant for discussion purposes so editors can come to a consensus conclusion about whether or not to delete an article. Details do matter here and it would really be beneficial to editors and administrators if you can expand on your view that the article is not written in a neutral tone. Could you please provide some examples? Additionally, how do you conclude that the title, the actual name of the school, is advertorial? Requesting to replace the entire article is not constructive. Could other editors please provide input? Parkertony (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely accurate. Your replacement article is at User:Frayae/sandbox/Easy Mandarin Chinese School. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most significant difference in your replacement article appears to be the removal of the "overview" and "location/transportion" sections. Do you believe these sections are not written in a neutral tone? Please advise. I think the article would be better to keep those sections in order to provide readers with relevant content related to the organization. Perhaps we can work together to improve the original article rather than gutting it entirely. Appreciate your help and thank you for your input. Parkertony (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The location is noteworthy because Jingan Temple is a landmark.Parkertony (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frayae I have an idea. Would you be okay keeping the original article if, instead of replacing with a new article called "Easy Mandarin Chinese School", we replace the original article content mentions of EasyMandarin Chinese School with just "EasyMandarin". We would take off the words "Chinese School" from the name for consistency with the title like the replacement article you prepared. The first line would read "EasyMandarin (simplified Chinese: 易在汉语; pinyin: Yì zài hànyǔ), also known as "Easy Mandarin", is a language school located in Shanghai, China." If I make this change and include all of your changes to the wording in the first section, would you be more comfortable with it? I want to run this by you before I make the edits. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frayae Me again. Would really appreciate if you can help salvage the article. I submitted this article as a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program, and I made every effort to abide by the rules of Wikipedia - particularly to keep the neutral tone and not be promotional. I really don't want to see my one contribution to Wikipedia get deleted. Other editors have already made what I believe to be significant changes to the article in order to meet WP:NCORP. If you see any other changes or deletions that could help, would you please edit the article directly? Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Parkertony: Unfortunately the subject does not meet WP:NCORP, the only way to improve this is to add more reliable in-depth sources. The draft I created was simply an example on how to deal with the promotional content and in no way helps salvage the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frayae I see that you recently edited the article Hutong_School which I believe is a very similar subject with very similar references. If EasyMandarin article provides company history and more content (partners, etc) taken directly from the subject's own website just like the Hutong_School article, would you find that more acceptable? Really appreciate your feedback. Thank youParkertony (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would not help. The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - fails WP:NCORP. The article largely relies on reviews from Time Out Shanghai and The Beijinger. However, reviews in local newspapers do not constitute in-depth coverage. Many restaurants and other businesses are reviewed in major newspapers (just read the local sections of the New York Times or Washington Post), but that does not make them notable. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe The Beijinger reference is not a review. It is a reference to the school's online language proficiency tests. The article has 5 references. The two that you mentioned are more well-known, while the others are industry magazines as well as a news organization that covers China - GBTimes. Coverage is also fairly significant in the following reference http://web.archive.org/web/20110814181711/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai Parkertony (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Hutong_School. This article has similar content and references.Parkertony (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe Again, The Beijinger reference is not a "review" as you wrote above. Have you actually viewed the references for this article? Kindly asking for you to provide more relevant and preferably actionable information so we can fix the article. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See The Beijinger reference here - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-tests Parkertony (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijinger reference is basically a review of its website service. -Zanhe (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZanheThat is one way to look at it. In any case, reviews from mainstream local media establishes notability. Do you not agree?

"In-depth" coverage can be found in the industry magazine references provided. Did you look at the other references in this article?

Do you have any suggestions on fixing the article?Parkertony (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it fails WP:NCORP to me. desmay (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desmay What aspect of the article do you believe appears to fail WP:NCORP? Could you please provide examples? The article has been edited quite a bit since the proposal for deletion, and several edits were specifically made to address the issues raised regarding NCORP.

Did you look at the article Hutong_School? This active article has similar content and references. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDITORS PLEASE READ: After editor Frayae voted to delete the article in this AfD (please see above), she later edited a similar organization -Hutong School. I then asked her if she would be satisfied if this article would be edited to a similar tone and content as that article (which mainly references it's own website) and her reply was “The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable”. I then wondered why she would not tag an “unacceptable” article for AfD when she is a very active editor on Wikipedia (with hundreds of edits per day). This made me think what is going on here - why is the article in this AfD being singled out? I decided to do more research. Upon further investigating, there is a case to be made that the article EasyMandarin is written similar to (or better than) nearly ALL private schools and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia with regards to WP:NCORP. In my estimations, I would say around 80% to 90% of the articles on private and (small) public schools are written in a less acceptable way than the article being discussed in this AfD. Please see for yourself – you can find most schools listed by year in “Category:Educational institutions established in 20XX”.

Please see (random selection of 30 articles):

Cairo English School

Fuzhou Sanmu Middle School

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute

Nord Anglia Chinese International School

American International School of Guangzhou

Abbotsford Virtual School

Xiwai International School

American Sports University

The SMIC Private School

Hallmark World School

Yew Wah School of Shanghai

Daystar Academy

Petchey Academy

J.P. World School

Mountain View Academy

Pritzker College Prep

Seongnam Foreign Language High school

Tula’s Institute

Leopold Mozart Centre

Acropolis Technical Campus

Gary Comer College Prep

Accrington Academy

A. P. Møller School

Ark Academy

Affinity Business School

While the article for EasyMandarin has what I believe to be some reliable third party references with significant coverage and there is an argument to be made (that I personally believe) for WP:GNG, nearly all of the schools in this list make no claim for notability and most only reference their own website (no 3rd party references). It seems like editors are being a little strict with the article being discussed in this AfD. I hope some editors will be fair and reconsider their vote or other, more lenient editors will chime in. Parkertony (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is history to this, I haven't read all the related history but look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which suggests that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the correct guideline. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those schools are notable but have poor sources, tag them for {{refimprove}} and {{primary sources}}. If you're unsure about their notability, tag them for {{notability}}. You could also bring up a cleanup request at WP:SCHOOLS. Use AFD only for the cases where there's no hope to establish notability after exhaustive searches. But they don't need to be discussed in this thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF Frayae -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance states:

In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.

My argument to keep the article in this AfD is not that it should get a free pass, but rather that in comparison to the large majority (I believe to be around 80-90%) of private and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia, this article is more acceptable with regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. Notability is subjective and I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school.

After the article was tagged AfD, editors reestablished the two dead reference links and 3 new additional references to reliable secondary sources were added. Some of these sources are industry specific publications (i.e. Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine) that editors may not be familiar with, but are well-known in the industry. On top of the fixed and new references, the article was edited to remove and clean up promotional verbiage and maintain a neutral tone. Please see link to comparison showing difference between article prior to AFD tag and article in current current state with post AFD edits addressing editors concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023 Parkertony (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not first tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to allow for time to fix issues. It went strait to AfD.Parkertony (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I'm concerned by some of the new editors commenting above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you concerned about regarding the "new editors" commenting above? Why not try to address those concerns? I thought that this section was meant to be a discussion forum, but it feels more like a bully section and is clearly a case of Groupthink. The easiest thing to do here is for an editor to skim the first line of the nomination, skim the article, and simply write "delete, per nom". This requires no thought whatsoever and provides no constructive feedback. Did you know that the article has had a makeover since the article was nominated including bringing back the dead links that were an issue per nom. Again, here is a link showing before and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023 The commentary above raises important, relevant issues that directly impact whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia. In order for Wikipedia to be consistent, editors should compare apples to apples. This article is a private school, so wouldn't it make sense to take a look at a sample of other private school articles on Wikipedia? My argument is that this article is more acceptable than most private school articles and therefore should not be deleted. Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OSE point to Wikipedia article consistency being an important factor on deciding whether or not articles should be included in Wikipedia. Take a look at at this article for example, Western International School of Shanghai. It has zero references and was mostly edited by a user named "Wissmarketing". This article was not marked AFD and has been active since 2008. This article is not an outlier at all, neither are the 30 schools that I listed above. 90% of private school articles have a less acceptable level of acceptance on Wikipedia as the article in this AFD. If this article gets deleted, then there is a solid case to delete hundreds if not thousands of other private school articles on Wikipedia. I am sorry if I am being repetitive and lengthy, but it seems like my commentary is being completely ignored or misunderstood by editors. Parkertony (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. the issue is simply that editors have limited time to delete articles. There may be hundreds or thousands of bad articles, but their existance can't be used to argue that they should all be kept. You linked to WP:OSE, but have you yet read WP:ININ? For more detail you can also look at Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FrayaeThe argument is not to keep the article in this AFD because it is similar to thousands of bad articles that exist on Wikipedia. I don't think any Wikipedia editor would try to make such a ridiculous argument. My first and foremost argument is that I believe the subject of the article is notable and that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. My second argument which brings into account the guideline WP:OSE is that compared to an entire category of articles written on Wikipedia, private schools, this article is more acceptable. Since the article is about a private school, it would make sense to look at other private schools on Wikipedia. Appreciate you taking the time to provide your input and analysis for this AFD discussion as I believe this is how AFD is meant to work. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: In their reply to the article, Parkertony (the article's creator and ~~only~~ main contributor) wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." I thought the nomination was perfectly clear, but as the nominator I will reiterate that the article makes no claims to notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses. It is an encyclopedia. Why does an article about this school belong in an encyclopedia? I see nothing in the article's content to justify its inclusion. It appears to me to be a business listing. As for the newly added references, we should all look at them one by one and narrow down which, if any, meet the criteria described in WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: In their comment above, Curb Safe Charmer (the nominator of this AFD) opens with a note about me claiming I am "the article's creator and only contributor". This article had 38 editors contribute to it according to the statistics https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/EasyMandarin. I am not sure why the editor thought this was relevant to note, but yes, I created this article for a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program. I am defending this article not only because I created it, but because I believe it is a notable school with proper references and written in a neutral tone according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a history of accepting Private_schools such as the one in this article, and currently continues to do so. There is an argument to be made that both private and public schools are run as businesses, and there are thousands and thousands of school articles included in Wikipedia. The reason that I wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." was because the editor that tagged this AFD for discussion went on holiday (accordging to their talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer) after tagging AFD, and was not participating in the discussion that the editor created. The article in this AFD was not given an opportunity to fix the dead links and other article issues raised. Rather than being tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to fix, it was immediately tagged WP:AFD which automatically adds a bias and paints a negative picture of the article for editors viewing and evaluating for the first time. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:Regarding notability. I believe that the school being selected and written about in Time Out (magazine) article "The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai", being written about in industry magazines (Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine), and the founder being interviewed and school written about in a China news site (GB Times) meets notability guidelines. Of course, some editors may not find that these items make it notable. As mentioned above, I think it is a good idea for editors to also look at the level of notability that was and is acceptable of other private school articles on Wikipedia as a reference to maintain consistency in the encyclopedia per WP:OSE. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: As this AfD is focussed on the strength or otherwise of the references, here's my assessment of those:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
radio86.com: Learn Chinese in Shanghai	Y	N	Y	Y	N	This is an interview with the founder
studytravel magazine	N	N	Y	N	N	A single sentence attributed to the school's founder
Timeout - The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai	N	?	Y	Y	N	Just a paragraph providing the writer's opinion on the school, the classes on offer and prices. Not in depth coverage.
languagemagazine.com: So you want to learn Chinese	N	N	Y	N	N	Appears to be advertorial, probably paid promotion
thebeijinger.com blog: See How Your Mandarin Measures Up With These 5 Digital Proficiency Tests	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A link to an online test on the company website
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer Why do you believe the Timeout reference is not significant? The Timeout article talks about the school location, school trips, classes offered, and prices. What more do you expect a secondary source to write about a school? Same goes for The Beijinger reference - the reference includes a full paragraph dedicated to the school describing, in detail, the school's online language proficiency test as well providing a link to them. Please keep in mind that this article is about a school and look at the precedent that has already been set on Wikipedia regarding schools in your evaluation. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown–Penn football rivalry[edit]

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

One in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. 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." Currently there are zero citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").

Non-GNG callouts:

Series dates to 1895 and is not particularly competitive.
site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
site:nytimes.com is another
Add booleans as helpful, but neither returned much for me. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep seems to have a rich history and I'm confident that the sourcing is a surmountable problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: Could you please post your new GNG-sufficient citations? I'm happy to add them to the article on your behalf and switch to Keep, if sufficient. Right now the article's nominal topic is entirely unsourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one found through the Wayback Machine. Most of the games occurred before the internet existed, so offline sources would require research. I have no problem assuming good faith that they can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not a rivalry citation -presumably everyone is already in agreement that the series and game results have occurred (also true for almost any two teams from similar locations and/or leagues). The nytimes.com and newspapers.com courtesy links (above) also don't seem to return GNG coverage of a rivalry. So I presume we are in agreement that no GNG-sufficient citations have been identified to date. No intent here to badger you, only trying to reiterate that we have no supporting citations for the article's nominal topic. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and a quick before search for the rivalry brought up just this Wikipedia article and a brief blurb from 1935 in which "rivalry" was used simply to colour the article. Not actually a rivalry. SportingFlyer talk 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Did a web search on topic, and not much came up. 🔥flame🔥^talk 15:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's something from the 2016 game from ESPN; Sorry, I couldn't find anything at ESPN on the 1895 game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: that link is broken. SportingFlyer talk 21:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal due to concerns being addressed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Maestro[edit]

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

Seems to be promotional due to it relying on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG due to the primary sources appearing to be too close to the subject, and thus being potentially unreliable. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the previous AfD, GNG could be met if the news sources were more heavily relied upon than the ones that are problematic. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have no idea of your processes. I don't see what has changed from the previous AfD - the sources remain, and presumably there are others. If someone wishes to edit the article and increase reliance on those sources, by all means do that. It seems counter productive for me to do that as that would remain as a primary source, and similarly counter productive to delete the article before doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNLewis (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the previous nominator I accept that the references found in the last AfD, just over a year ago, are still valid. The current state of the article is no reason to delete the article, but are a reason to have the nominator rewrite the article based on those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (at least) Unlike some of his other work the Kissell ebook is self published ... I've added another cite ensuring both in archived in Wayback.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal as concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rovčanin[edit]

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

Set index article with no actual pages listed besides the region the name comes from. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Besides the link to the region, I added links to articles about three notable people with this surname. It was quite easy to find them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The list added by Antidiskriminator makes the rationale for deletion moot. In any case, I would challenge the notion that the article is set index page. Its subject is a surname, not a list of surnames. A surname can be notable regardless of whether or not notable people with that surname have Wikipedia articles. SpinningSpark 11:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JustUsBoys[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable adult website. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:WEB. Awards are not significant / well known. Created by Special:Contributions/Brycethomason with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient secondary source coverage to pass WP:WEB. RS coverage is limited to incidental mentions related to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi, nothing significant. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Heinrich Hass[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER; for Navy personnel, SOLDIER requires a command of a capital ship, not submarines. Significant RS coverage not found: [78], just a few passing mentions. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. The impetus behind creation appears to be an OR-like connection to U-96 / Das Boot movie, as OberRanks created a number of similar articles. No de.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Not notable for the Das Boot angle (if it is even correct), as he was only a midshipman at that stage. Whilst he commanded U-2324 in 1945, it only sank one ship. No higher-level decorations, rank equivalent to a lieutenant colonel. What information there is on him in reliable sources (which isn't significant) can be fairly included in the U-2324 article if considered necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and similar rationales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Herrmann and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Radermacher. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect plausible if someone brings a good source for Das Boot inspiration). As Oberleutnant zur See doesn't pass SOLDIER, nor does command of a 230 ton, 18 man coastal Type XXIII submarine (note that a Ohio-class submarine commander/captain (switched in the 90s) involved in battle could possibly meet the capital ship definition - but not a small coastal submarine). From my BEFORE he does not pass GNG. If the connection to Das Boot is RSed, a redirect is perhaps plausible - but not an article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notable. Rzvas (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to redirect to Debt#Criticisms can be discussed separately. Sandstein 18:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of debt[edit]

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

This article is unfortunately a bit of a mess right now, as it confuses a lot of different terms and concepts. I think it should be deleted until something better gets created. It conflates many different ideas like usury, credit and public & private debt, that all, while related, are not the same. I think for such a specific article to exist it has to be well written. BeŻet (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to parent article Debt#Criticisms. I am, somewhat regretfully, mostly in agreement with BeZet on this. There's a lot of potential for this to be a great article, as there's a lot that has been written about it, but at the moment it seems partly a POV Fork, but is overall just incomplete. In comparison, the section Debt#Criticisms, while certainly not perfect and definitely under-cited, is more representative and probably a better start. It's also not so long that it would require a split-off into a separate article. Some of the religious content might warrant a merge, but much is better covered in other articles, like usury, Islamic banking and finance, and Loans and interest in Judaism. MarginalCost (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title frames the topic in an inherently biased way, contrary to WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly developed WP:POVFORK of Usury and specifically Usury#Religious context. Article title is POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect. I agree with BeZet and MarginalCost. This could be a great overview article but right now it looks more like a wp:stub. There are so many different aspects that are not covered. Some of these can be found under Debt#Criticisms, Credit theory of money, Fractional reserve banking, Monetary reform, Jubilee Debt Coalition, Debt of developing countries, Neocolonialism, Usury, Islamic banking and finance, Microfinance, Microcredit, Debt bondage, Debt: The First 5000 Years, etc. Some of the contents of this article might be merged into the relevant articles. This problem field is so big and many-faceted that it would be nice with an overview of different kinds of debt and different criticisms with links to the relevant articles as I have listed above. I am in doubt whether such an overview could fit into Debt#Criticisms or it is so big that it needs a separate article. Bolarno (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and expand. This is a big topic with many aspects: private debt, national debt, business financing, debt of developing countries, debt-dependence, slavery, credit theory of money, financialization, religion, history, etc. Do you think that a long criticism section would be accepted in the 'debt' article, or would it be rejected as unbalanced or POV? In the latter case, we need to keep, rewrite and expand the Criticism of debt page. Perhaps rename it to something else? Perhaps make a sub-category page under Category:Debt? What do you think? Bolarno (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just think combining everything into one article is a bit pointless, because it's a lot of very different things. For instance there are economists who strongly criticise financialization and the influence of private banks, but are not opposed to debt per say. I think these topics should be discussed separately, because I don't think there is a single theory or (serious) school of thought that criticises every form of debt. It just seems to me that the original creator of the article was a bit confused by the term. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: A-D". Global Vision – via Google Books.

[2] Bisht, Narendra S.; Bankoti, T. S. (25 September 2018). "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of the Himalayan Tribes: R-Z". Global Vision – via Google Books.

[3] Dutta, Subrata Kumar (1 January 2005). "Uprooted Reangs: Strangers in Their Motherland". Akansha Publishing House – via Google Books.

[4] Singh, Kumar Suresh; India, Anthropological Survey of (25 September 1995). "People of India". Anthropological Survey of India – via Google Books.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]