Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 April	17 April >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giedrė Dukauskaitė[edit]

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

I thought I could salvage this article, but it’s unsalvageable. Take the directories out and the most you can really find out there is her mom doing an interview defending her body type against critics of a Victoria Beckham ad she was in. Trillfendi (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The (albiet brief) consensus here is that being indexed by Scopus meets the criteria for inclusion by WP:JOURNALCRIT. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Asthma & Allergy Educators[edit]

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

Defunct journal that was never notable. Does not meet any of WP:JOURNALCRIT. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does abstraction and indexation by Scopus not meet WP:JOURNALCRIT criterion 1? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, this would still need an independent reliable source to verify that Scopus considers this journal influential. – bradv🍁 19:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus itself is an independent reliable source in respect of this journal, and I cited it in the article before commenting here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journal was indexed in Scopus, which is an indepedent reliable source and inclusion means that they found it influential. It's a bit minimal, but it meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being indexed in Scopus is enough. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed...being indexed in Scopus is enough. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springhill Avenue shooting 1987[edit]

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

While the article's title is "Springhill Avenue shooting 1987", the majority of the actual content in the article is about the IPLO vs INLA feud during the Troubles. Most of the content in the article that is about the actual topic appears to be WP:SYNTH, which leads me to believe that this subject doesn't have notability independent from other topics related to the Troubles. As someone with only passing knowledge of the conflict, I'm not sure whether some of this content is worth merging or spinning off into a new article (for instance, we don't seem to have an article about the INLA/IPLO feud that this article discusses) or if we should simply delete it, but either way the article should not exist as written under the current title. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator's reasoning. This article's author seemed to use the Springhill Avenue incident as a reason for writing an article on a much larger issue. Note that Springhill Avenue itself is only mentioned once in the main text. The 1987 incident on that street appears non-notable due to lack of reliable coverage as a specific event, and the article is not really about that event anyway. The author could use some of the text here to build a future article on the INLA/IPLO feud, or contribute it to the existing article on The Troubles. This Springhill Avenue article is nonsensical on its own terms. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tentatively agree. The 1987 event could very well be encyclopedic on its own, and an overhaul of this article is possible. However, a notice was placed on this page and removed without comment, similarly a note was made in the article's talk page and was not replied to. Both of these were done over a week ago and the article is not old/stale and the main editor is active. This strikes me as sufficient chance for the editor to begin to address the issues brought up. As they didn't, and as the article is a bit of a COATRACK, and as the event is not of obviously sufficient importance for other active editors to step in, I'm comfortable with deletion. I'm happy to change my !vote if a significant cleanup is carried out. I understand that AFD is not cleanup, but it isn't necessary to keep an article because it is possible that an encyclopedic article could be written for a given title. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we need an article on every minor incident of the Troubles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this were notable, which I doubt, it would have to be re-written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general consensus here is keep and that he passes WP:GNG. I'd generally like a little bit more weighted policy base discussion but since being relisted there were some more pile on keep !votes. It's pretty clear here. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 17:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. Currie[edit]

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been almost eight years since I wrote this, but I believe it was partly in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and the existence of Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey where numerous blue links now reside. He was a mayor, but he was also a prominent New Jersey physician. He helped found Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in the 1880s. He seems to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small town mayors do not get an inclusion pass just for existing. The fact that hard headedness has created an inordinantly high number of articles on New Jersey mayors does not make all such mayors notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep all high school articles or delete all "small town mayor" articles by rote. The issue is notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 03:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references look to meet GNG, there are dozens more references about him on newspaper archives, I'll start adding some more information. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. -John M Wolfson (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he is remembered today (check) and the sources are multiple (check) and in depth (check) i say keep. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed... he is remembered today and the sources are multiple. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Kobayashi (actor)[edit]

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

A biographical article about a Japanese child actor, but there is no evidence of notability - none of the films listed in the Filmography have sources to show he appeared in them and the two that have Wikipedia articles don't mention him. He does have an IMDB entry, but it doesn't list any of the films he is claimed to appear in here. I suspect his parts are so minor to be significantly below the thresholds in WP:BIO and at most the actor should appear in List of Japanese child actors - if suitable sources are provided. Railfan23 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This stub cites no sources and contains no evidence of notability outside primary sources.Worldlywise (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. There are insufficient sources, and we tend to delete articles about marginally notable child actors. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China's Ministry of Education compiled the "Chinese" recommended reading series[edit]

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

Very little or no nobility at all. I'm having trouble understanding what the article is about. This doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it’s the syllabus of required readings in the Chinese education system. Only likely sources will be an official ministry publication in Chinese. Mccapra (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and particularly per Mccapra. I get the feeling this could have been PROD'd or CSD'd if it wasn't. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a list of recommended books for students. Poorly written and poorly sourced, WP:TNT even if notable. -Zanhe (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG; not encyclopedic at all. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a government directory. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Plisson[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE notability requirements, has been tagged for over three years. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sign of passing notability requirements and also a product of undeclared paid editing which is surprising considering the state of it - it must have been cheap! Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The French article has sources from Le Figaro, Le Monde and Canal+, which make it pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corteva Agriscience[edit]

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

This article's creator contested a PROD and recommended taking it to AfD. First, this article makes no attempt to assert the company's notability beyond it's basic near-future existence. More specifically, the notability requirements for companies state that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable" (no inherent notability) and "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable" (no inherited notability). The "too soon" standard is also relevant because even after the company is created there is no guarantee that it will receive news coverage for some time to come. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only created it as a redirect, but now that we're here: independent sources covering this globally major agricultural products company have been added to the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found sources not used on the page already 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and even more (many more through google). I have not checked all these sources for their suitability, but there are at least a good number which could be used. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 2 of these sources are from abc and Huffington Post and most other sources are from websites which seem to be reliable and independent. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the number of sources above, it has got to pass the WP:GNG (And then also meet the notability guidelines). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - The article has been expanded since the AfD so perhaps that motivated the article's creator. We can see if anyone still thinks the company is non-notable, but I have no disputes with the outcome of the AfD per the WP:HEYMANN standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jamieson[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability beyond a couple of bronze medals at competitions VViking_TalkEdits 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Google search turns up multiple people with the same name, neither of whom were the article subject. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on content of article, the only possible notability would be for wining fencing medals, but as there are several winners of Commonwealth Fencing Championships events with no articles, I do not think that this is sufficient to meet notability requirements. As an aside it is very unclear where the information in the article has come from. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any notability; fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG so his only claim to notability are his Commonwealth Fencing Championship medals. Those championship aren't part of the Commonwealth Games and most of the medals were in team events which only had 7 or 8 teams. I checked the FIE website and he never competed at the world championships (or Olympic Games) so I don't think that WP:NSPORT is met.Sandals1 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Rath[edit]

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

Reliable sources are lacking, the tone of the article is promotional, my own searches couldn't yield much of wp:rs QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And move as suggested. Sandstein 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic saints[edit]

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

There is only one article listed here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then rename Gnostic saints (Christian) to Gnostic saints. It seems this previously had other articles on the DAB page which have since been deleted and a disambig shouldn't have 1 article listed, as it's not then serving a purpose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move, as above. Could just have been an unctontroversial WP:RM? PamD 09:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No need for a disambig for only one article Rollidan (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manca Marcelan[edit]

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

No reliable sources available for the subject on the web. ToT89 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: her club website looks reliable enough and is good enough for Slovenian wikipedia. She seems to have been national champion in several competitions, so being notable. PamD 08:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work but she is notable per PamD. W C M_email 10:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While it definitely needs expansion and outside sources (Perhaps from someone who can read Slovenian), She does seem notable enough as she has been named athlete of the year in her homecountry and seems to have quite some success. Zombles (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a couple of references, and there are more online that verify other wins, etc. I don't know what the nominator means by "no reliable sources" - is Slovenia's national public broadcaster not reliable? or the Slovenian Press Agency? Slovenian newspapers? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muza (singer)[edit]

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

None of the sources show notability. Sources 8-16 (out of 16 sources) are iTunes, source 7 is Instagram. Coverage falls short of requirements under notability guidelines and fails WP:SINGER. Released a self produced album. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is defined as "notability"? Because according to Wikipedia:CCS it makes a credible claim of significance and would not need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. UserNumber (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UserNumber: whether the article needs a fundamental rewrite (G11) or makes a credible claim of significance (A7) doesn't matter because this is not a CSD nomination. The concept of "notability" is outlined at the notability policy, the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for musicians. – Teratix ₵ 23:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: see [1] :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now why there could be confusion, but the point stands. – Teratix ₵ 23:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable singer; there is a dearth of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources, including news outlets and the relevant literature; what remains are blogs, itunes, social media and download platforms. All of which comprehensively fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Analysis of cited sources:
- dissdash.com and musicalnoize.com are obscure sites that have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking, don't have the characteristics of reliable sources.
- youredm.com is also fairly obscure (no Wikipedia article and not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) but lists an editor-in-chief. The one time it was considered at WP:RSN, the evaluation was "leaning unreliable" and the comment was "They have an established staff, but virtually none of them any any sort of credentials other than 'loving music' or 'listing where they live or grow up'. Seems like more of a fan/enthusiast group."
- thedjlist.com appears to be a press release. The site positions itself as a place for "DJs and industry professionals" to promote themselves. The one time it was considered at WP:RSN, the evaluation was "undecided" and the comment was "Their About Us page states they've been around for two decades, but it was difficult to see any sort of staff list, editorial policy, credentials, or anything like that."
- instagram and iTunes are reliable sources for "you can listen/buy song X" on instagram/iTunes, but they are not independent, and do nothing to establish notability.
- The two Nadia Ali pieces on BBC Asian Network are primary source interviews where Muza teases and then launches his album. Promotion is not the route to notability.
- Jago News 24 contains a single relevant sentence, "Bangladeshi descent, expatriate artist Muza gave voice to the song."

Searches of the usual Google types, EDM magazines DJMag and Mixmag, and Bangladeshi news sources found nothing better. That is not surprising, since his first album was released only this month. Perhaps as his career progresses he will become notable, but at present it's WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Heinz[edit]

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

I'm unsure based on this article what exactly he's supposed to be notable for and a search doesn't indicate to me that he actually is - in fact, aside from being related to John Kerry, I doubt the mentions that I can find would even exist if it weren't for his family ties. His board positions and term position on CFR are not automatically notable either as far as I can tell. I see a bit of local minor coverage, but nothing that I'd consider in-depth, about being the "heir" to Heinz but I'd expect something like this to have received far more coverage. It appears also that there's been a bit of whitewashing to the article but even going back in the history, I don't see anything that's really significant. I also wouldn't object to redirecting it to Henry John Heinz III or Teresa Heinz, but the rest of this needs to go as there's nothing to substantiate it. Praxidicae (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any independent notability. He is related to famous people, but notability is not inherited. The only source in the article is a marriage announcement. --Tataral (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article remains completely unsourced (or rather, not reliably sourced) after three weeks of AfD, which makes deletion mandatory per WP:V, a core policy. We simply do not keep unsourced content that is not sourced in a reasonable time after being challenged. Sandstein 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whittle (game show)[edit]

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

This looks an obvious candidate to be redirected to Everybody's Equal since the only differences between the two shows are the title, host and numbers; they are the same show. Do we need a separate article, or am I missing something? Laun chba ller 22:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 08:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)-PATH SLOPU (TALK) 08:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Alternate redirect or merge (see below): I cannot agree to redirect one unsourced article to another unsourced article even though it would reduce maintenance. If there is some sourcing I would be agreeable to a merge/redirect but sourcing through the "External links" is not acceptable to me. Otr500 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, the article is unsourced, but having Googled it, it seems to be notable enough to have an article, and I'm sure we will find reliable sources for it. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This is a 2006 article and I didn't find any reliable sources so maybe "someone" can prove there are sources. Since you seem to have found something please share it. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so there should be something per WP:TVSERIES. Otr500 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every other British game show has an article so this must as well. Crocodile Dippy 2 15:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I disagree with all three of you. Otr500, the absence of sourcing does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist and is not a valid reason to delete. Crocodile Dippy 2, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an even less valid argument. Foxnpichu I disagree with you less, but I would argue that both articles are short and unlikely to be expanded, and thus could be merged per WP:ATD-M.--Laun chba ller 14:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to draw up an idea (in my head) which we can agree on. I'm just not sure where to start. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This conversation is clearly ongoing - relisting to give everyone a chance to continue discussing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: That other stuff exists has continually been argued as reason to keep articles (even now) and just as continuously argued as poor reasoning. I have not looked at "Every other British game show" on Wikipedia, that may have just flown under the radar. This is not merely a very poorly sourced article it is considered unsourced, yet... improperly sourced through "External links". I could not find any sources so actually sought out if someone else would. The best reply is that just because a source can not be found does not mean it does not exist, and a resulting "keep" !vote. This could be argued on every article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep or as an alternative to deletion. WP:Notability still "requires verifiable evidence" through reliable sources. A "game show" is produced through an organization so should follow Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (media) that discusses notability in depth. Considering that we like something is generally ineffective. "Ignoring the rules" should only be used on the basis that the policies and guidelines hamper improvement to Wikipedia. Short of that consensus is generally regarded as a "process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies" and is backed by more than local consensus. In this case I do not see how allowing an unsourced article on a game show improves Wikipedia. Question @ User:Crocodile Dippy 2 and User:Foxnpichu: Are there no reliable sources to back up the article, not even one confirming notability? Otr500 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500 Well, I have found these: [2] [3] [4]. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it, Adamnostalgia.wordpress.com is one person's blog. Neither constitute reliable sources. ~~Not sure about UKGameshows.com.~~ I would argue UK Gameshows.com is a reliable source as it is apparently good enough for The Guardian and The Times - what else have you got?--Laun chba ller 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is certainly not reliable. I don't totally agree on the reliability of the source UK Gameshows.com and a discussion almost three 1/2 years ago gave doubts on the editorial oversight. It is being used as a source (sometimes) and as an "External link" (sometimes) but I feel the general acceptability as a reliable source on notability (over content sourcing) is still questioned. This could be re-evaluated if someone wishes to use the link as a sole basis for stand-alone status bit I don't think it can be considered significant coverage. Unless or until this is solved the site would likely not be contested when used for content. Here is a problem: If a closer decides there is no consensus or a close keep, for whatever reasoning with 1 redirect, 1 keep, and 1 delete/alt redirect/merge (the one keep simply referencing other stuff as reasoning likely will not count) it will just delay someone else bringing it up again. One source does not raise the bar of notability above any threshold to pass GNG or Wikipedia:TVSERIES. I have added "redirect"/ "merge" as alternatives until there is clarification on UK Gameshows.com. Otr500 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know these aren't reliable, but there are quite a few forums regarding the show, meaning people must remember it. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This discussion seems to have died, and we are still unsure what to make of the article. Should we close this as No Consensus or hold off for a bit? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts[edit]

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

Article has no sources except to its own website. There is no evidence that this party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Libertarian Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It will be far better to keep the article and improve it rather than delete it as the Libertarian party is important enough to have state affiliate pages (like the Green-Rainbow Party) and if you look at the article now I have greatly improved it and plan on doing so with more references in the future. Jon698 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Not a ton of sources at present but sufficient to meet notability standards.--TM 11:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Libertarian Party (United States) . Fails WP:SIGVOV - I searched. I see that many of the other pages in Category:Libertarian Party (United States) by state are equally deficient in available sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jon698. I added some bits as well. Article meets aforementioned notability criteria. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:SIGVCOV. XavierItzm (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it seems that a recreation from scratch by somebody not associated with this belief might have a better chance to be kept. Sandstein 16:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photon belt[edit]

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

This article started as a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt by a long since indef blocked user. It was given a second chance "on the condition that it retain a neutral point of view". The original text contains WP:OR and there are remnents in the current article. Most of the text is poorly sourced and of questionable accuracy. Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Photon_belt_or_band,_a_ring_maybe,_and_lots_of_other_crank_terms for prior discussion and context. The remaining trimmed material that is sourced is of dubious WP:GNG. The page is a magnet for fringe theories that are poorly documented in WP:RS and it has had persistent issues with WP:NPOV. --mikeu ^talk 10:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Maybe Speedy Delete. There's nothing new here to justify overturning old consensus. This is just someone who didn't like the consensus and did their own thing in spite of it. Perhaps redirect to 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes where the topic is briefly mentioned. ApLundell (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As proposer I support deletion and agree it might qualify for speedy. --mikeu ^talk 20:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds about this one, but I think I want to go with a WP:IAR keep. On the one hand, there seems to be a shortage of sources meeting Wikipedia's GNG. On the other, the sheer number of self-published and paid-for books on the subject by different authors over a long period of time shows that this is a well known belief.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] It is demonstrably nonsense, but I think Wikipedia ought to have some neutral coverage of it since readers will likely come across it. We cannot really expect academic sources to address the subject much unless proponents have first succeeded in getting academic publication (unlikely), at which point challenge would likely be forthcoming. The extant article is a vast improvement on the deleted one, the self-published sources are good for statements about what they themselves believe per WP:SELFPUB, and The Straight Dope source provides some critical balance. SpinningSpark 12:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I have had a certain involvement with various New-Age types of people and events and groups connected with them, quite a long time ago now, and this idea is a real one within that realm - I encountered it a few times, and feel information on it could be useful to those researching New-Age beliefs. I do recall someone telling me that, depending on the exact position of the Earth at the time, the collision with the photon belt would result in either 5 days of light or 5 days of dark (I never quite understood the reason for that), and people were seriously exhorted to prepare for it, hoard necessary supplies, and generally approach it as a siege or disaster situation. This was in the 1990s, and the idea did seem to have a certain vogue at the time. I think the idea itself has zero credibility, but that's not really the issue; it is definitely a part of that broad spectrum of belief under the New-Age heading. I do feel the article could do with a lot of improvement, though, from someone knowledgeable on the topic. Unfortunately, I am not the one for that, because it is now a long time since I heard and read about this (some people I knew seemed to take it quite seriously), and I have forgotten much of the fine detail now. A lot of this stuff circulates by word-of-mouth and via literature, usually of an ephemeral nature, produced within small groups or movements, so I do realize that providing sources acceptable to Wikipedia will probably be more difficult for this than for many more "mainstream" topics. But, in general, when an article in Wikipedia is inadequate, I would support a default response of improving it rather than deleting it. Knowledge is precious, and sometimes very scarce, and should never be obliterated lightly. M.J.E. (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noted this contribution from LuckyLouie about the mini-bios in the footnotes section in the 2011 AfD, which are similar to the notes that were added in 2017 by an IP. I note that the same IP has been warned for copyvio (see user talk:72.68.87.199) at another article soon after and added a large amount of text in 2017, more than doubling the article by byte count. Just FYI... EdChem (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:DENY. This was a gaming of Wikipedia. If someone wants to workshop a new article using WP:RSes that are properly WP:WEIGHTed, let them. But better to start from scratch. Nothing worth saving in this incarnation. jps (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS, and WP:SALT. I hate gaming the system. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or REDIRECT to 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes. Not enough WP:FRIND independent coverage to justify a stand alone article. What coverage there is [17] ties this belief to the 2012 phenomenon. (I'm not sure what other sources existed during the 2011 AfD, but I don't see 'em currently). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing the case that this stands out as a noteworthy bit of pseudoscience. It might merit a paragraph or so in another article, but that text should be written from scratch, given the problematic history and WP:OR concerns of the content here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. insufficiently sourced fringe material. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Vernon-Smith[edit]

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

delete. This was nominated for deletion but the PROD was removed. It was then re-added and removed again as per WP:PROD. The only references, sources and links on the article link to the BBC programme pages. UK Wiki User (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, the only sources provided aren't strong enough to meet requirements. In my opinion, this article doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Possibly self-promotion? Toby Hynde (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" position in this discussion revolved around the opinion that all BBC presenters are notable (so long as they have a staff profile), regardless of coverage. This is adequately rebutted by the users in the "delete" position. Exemptions from the General Notability Guideline do exist as their own specific notability guidelines, but no guidelines mention any such exemption for employees of an organization or company as is suggested.

Based on this, I see adequate consensus in favour of article deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic King (broadcaster)[edit]

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

delete. This is another BBC presenter with hardly any reliable sources and references. UK Wiki User (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All BBC presenters are notable, though I'm not sure about Toby and Smudge.--Davidcpearce (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm having to disagree with you. Just because people work for the BBC doesn't mean they're notable. If you can provide more reliable sources and references, feel free to contribute. UK Wiki User (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and fueled by primary sources. Many similarly named people turned up on a Google search. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BBC presenters are notable if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG as the subject of reliable source coverage; they are not notable if the best source you can show is their staff profile on the BBC's own self-published website. Nobody but nobody ever but ever gets an automatic inclusion freebie just because they have a staff profile on their own employer's website — no matter what notability claim is being made, the actual notability test is always still the amount of journalism that sources other than the person's employer have been motivated to do about him. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eglise Protestante Reformee du Burundi[edit]

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

I don't see any independent reliable sources for this. It's possible there is WP:RS for this in another language. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of Burundi is so weak I would be very reluctant to see any of it removed. This appears to be the only article about any protestant church in the country. Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--It is documented some in the article. Beyond this, consider that Burundi is a country of about 10 million. This denomination is more than 0.1% of the population. By percentage comparison, a church of similar relative size in the US would have over 400,000 members. There are many English language churches with less than 400,000 members which have articles that are never contested. The difference is that since the US is developed and speaks English, they are well documented. Burundi is small, impoverished, and foreign, so you are simply going to see less references for a country like that.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Found sources. It was an interesting rabbit hole.

 - https://www.nd.nl/nieuws/geloof/cgk-starten-zendingswerk-in-drie-landen.214673.lynkx
 - https://www.nd.nl/nieuws/geloof/predikant-in-burundi-stal-zendingsgeld.359781.lynkx

Updating page romnempire (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now has sufficient independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Oculi (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources coverage has been found and added to the article so that it passes WP:GNG and it also has a major claim of significance of being one of the main denominations in Burundi, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a denomination, not a local church. Denominations are generally notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Rivers[edit]

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

If I understand the structure of the English football leagues correctly, this footballer never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, nothing to indicate this player passes any policy. Govvy (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my understanding doesn't pass NFOOTY (he was on the squad of Cheltenham Town F.C. - but did not have playing time in the adult squad). Per my standards the sourcing out there does not establish GNG (though there is a smattering of local reporting, and this player has more coverage than many US minor league players). Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Added missing not.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I added the rest of his career, as per this site, but still nothing to pass NFOOTY or GNG. He never actually played for Cheltenham Town, was only on the bench three times. 21.colinthompson (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 04:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Body Boot Camp[edit]

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

content is is effectively advertising Whizz40 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Third-party sources check out but many of them are puff-piece interviews, while the article itself is promotional in tone and doesn't explain why the company is notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear notable in any sense and has little news coverage. PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spendlove[edit]

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

I tagged this for notability a month ago. Still not seeing significant coverage of this broadcaster. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While an MBE is not usually held to confer automatic notability per WP:ANYBIO #1, if it's awarded to someone in the public eye like a broadcaster then we would usually consider such people notable. I think it's fair to say that someone with such a long career in broadcasting and who has been honoured for it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I keep seeing the words "automatic notability" that equates to intrinsic or inherent notability, and would like to see such usage reflected as "presumed notability. This is actually covered under Wikipedia:Planned films#Coverage of planned films (WP:PRESUMPTION, WP:PRESUME, and WP:REBUT) but is relevant to any situation concerning the notability of a subject as "worthy of notice". All notability guidelines, that I am aware of, include reliable sources as a main criteria so they do not conflict with any policies. Even when there is presumed notability it is dependent on available sources and will still also be dependent on WP:consensus to have an article.

Having stated the above I tend to agree with User:Necrothesp. Being awarded an MBE would seem to indicate this would be considered a very high award, possibly on par with the Presidential Citizens Medal, so I think does add an element of reasoning for notability. Although the article is lacking, the condition of the article is not a determination of notability, but the availability of sources. It would seem there would be sources for such a long career. Otr500 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University[edit]

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

Non-notable Islamic seminary based on Chemmad, led by Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. The seminary doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. But the seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or CISCE the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is a recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable. MalayaliWoman (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Admins I would like add the article Darunnajath Islamic Complex to here, I think that also a linked seminary. MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be keep Because Darul Huda Islamic University is an accredited university.Nadwi Kooriyad (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are multiple English-language sources, including international ones, that mention and discuss DHIU. I strongly suspect that local sources (in Malayalam) also exist, but I lack the language skills to look for them. University "accredition" is dubious (and not mentioned on the website Nadwi Kooriyad linked to above) since it doesn't award any university-level degrees but relies on its students to get those from an open university, but it does seem to operate as a high school. Huon (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable.MalayaliWoman (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MalayaliWoman, I am aware that someone said so in the previous deletion discussion, but what's the evidence that they don't follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations? Are those the only boards in Kerala, and something not following them is not a high school? DHIU seems to require that its "university" students attend an open university, and I find it difficult to believe that a degree-granting university would accept people without a genuine high school diploma. That said, I disagree with the GNG assessment; the article cites quite a few reliable sources, I know that some additional ones, including more international media coverage, exist but aren't particularly helpful, and that's not even touching Malayalam or Hindi sources which are also likely to exist. Huon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon:, also note the references referred to have been deleted with much else of the article by the edit warring nominator who has added unreferenced non-neutral assertions that are immediately contradicted by the first of the remaining references Atlantic306 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the page to a better-sourced version without the patently false claim of it being a "diploma mill". There seems to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on, on both sides. Huon (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon: and previous deletion discussions. Csgir (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a legitimate argument for deletion discussions. I have examined the available sources, and it does not seem that the criteria of WP:SIGCOV under WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG is met. Analysis: (i) the Saudi Gazette source is largely WP:PRIMARY, as large chunks of the article include the author quoting or paraphrasing the interviewee, and in that it is at most a second-party source, and therefore cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability; (ii) the Hindu source reads like a press release/churnalism (see WP:PRIMARY), and it probably is one too; (iii) the DHIU source is WP:PRIMARY as well as it is from the school's website; (iv) the second article from Hindu is an obituary of an individual who served as the Pro-Chancellor of the institution, and does not give significant coverage to the institution; (v) the article in the New Indian Express is about a student magazine that makes a transitory reference to the institution. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:02, 15 April 2019 (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) 05:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per Huon.Saff V. (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually nominated this for deletion back in 2013, for reasons I came to understand were mistaken. I've not seen anything change in the sense of the subject becoming less notable, and the fact that this was nominated by a sockpuppet raises the possibility of bad faith being involved here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Because the DHIU is an accredited Indian University. 2405:204:D40C:A27A:A491:23F6:6F08:E7B8 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Working Families Party. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Working Families Party[edit]

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

Article only links to self-published sources. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into the article for the national Working Families Party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Working Families Party as even the article sources/external links are about that party. There has been some local coverage (e.g. [18]) but basically this party is the answer to a trivia question about Vermont politics (see [19]). We can't merge unsourced information to the larger article, so that leaves a redirect from a plausible search term to the larger article where this party is already mentioned. Bakazaka (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2019 (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) 05:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Working Families Party per Bakazaka. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Working Families Party per arguments made by Bakazaka and my own brief search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Working Families Party. Bakazaka has made very good points above as to why this should be a redirect. -- Dane ^talk 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Working Families Party per WP:BRANCH. Graywalls (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shaw (poet)[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage of this poet and musician. Tacyarg (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:POET.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citations on this article seem to be divided into two camps: those where Robert Shaw was involved in the production of the citation and those that don't mention Robert Shaw but rather connect to claims the article itself makes concerning Robert Shaw. Almost all of the edits by the original creator of the article are for this page or pages that relate to Robert Shaw, which would not be a problem in itself if the page could back up more of its claims with evidence. I'm sure the article could be made to satisfy WP:POET, but it looks like the page would require extensive archival work; I could see the page getting moved to a draft until then. Userqio (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly Move to draft Some industrious Wikipedian needs to improve the layout and readability of this article. And then I can vote. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rolls-Royce Trent. Sandstein 08:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANTLE[edit]

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

Totally unsourced even after 13 years, no apparent notability. Sourced content could be covered elsewhere. BilCat (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for not being verifiable.Dannyniu (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to Rolls-Royce Trent, its only link in the main space. Seems not unsourced but badly referenced.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources and references have been added since my nomination. Agree with merge with Trent article. - BilCat (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Since Atlantic never returned to vote, soft deleting. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads and Hands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability outside russia not established, first AfD (by SwisterTwister) simply timed out with lack of participation. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet, but it does not have to be notable outside Russia, as WP:GNG accepts non-English references and sources as proof of notability, so it's a question of whether the sources in whatever language pass WP:CORPDEPTH, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Or at worst no consensus, but more recent comments trend towards keep. Sandstein 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics[edit]

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

Not a shred of philosophy. The article sits here as a poor summary of the basic laws of thermo and Maxwell's demon. Started in these old exciting times (2003) when the concept of Wikipedia was vague. Original writer has long since gone, so I cannot ask for fixes. Nobody else cares . I think it is time for the demon to consume it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not a shred of a reason to delete. We don't delete articles because they were written in 2003. We don't delete articles because their original authors have moved on – that will happen to every article in time. We don't delete articles because they are poor – see WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. And we don't delete articles to feed demons. For an example of an external article of a similar kind in a reputable work, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasojn is stated clear; you saw it and even mocked it: the article has not a word on its subject. I mentioned the original authors because I could have asked them per WP:AGF to fix the article, -- but could not. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep As of right now I'm neutral on what should be done with the article, but Andrew should be given the boot if he makes any more counter-policy "speedy keep" !votes, and he should be blocked if he doesn't retract the above unprovoked personal attack on the nom: we can disagree about things until the cows come home, but when you start calling people trolls (and demons!) solely because you disagree with them, that's a sign that you perhaps need to take a break. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the nom who first raised the "feeding the demon" idiom, not Andrew. SpinningSpark 22:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: The nom appeared to be using "consumption by a demon" as a metaphor for deletion; Andrew referred to the nominator as a demon, and the page he linked made it clear he was implying the nominator was a troll. I see these as substantively different. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a suitable source to establish notability of this topic (as opposed to the more inclusive "Philosophy of physics"). There are several forks of Wikipedia's article online. I also found this source, which seems to be part of a university curriculum. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC
Delete per (i)Davidson. ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete. The article has relevant and respected sourcing. WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article passes WP:GNG. "Original writer has long since gone?" This is mot a valid reason to delete. WP:NOTPAPER so there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how the sources cover the subject, namely Philosophy of..." Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is certainly a topic here, particularly the area of philosophy of statistical mechanics, on which one can find eg this by Lawrence Sklar (2001/2015) at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or this introductory bibliography (2010) by David Wallace (Oxford/USC), or these "Philosophy of Thermal Physics" course-notes with reading list (2000) by Jeremy Butterfield.

Key questions are:

What is the nature of the probabilities in statistical mechanics?
Is it correct that classical thermodynamics can be "reduced" to the consequences of statistical mechanics, or is there more?
To what extent can it be said that statistical mechanics "explains" the second law of thermodynamics and the directionality of time -- or does this depend on important assumptions and approximations?

However, the present article appears neither to raise nor address any of these questions, giving just a capsule summary of the laws of thermodynamics, which really could be anywhere & really has very little connection to the specific topic. I would therefore say keep to preserve the history and the talk-page; but really, IMO, the entire content ought to be scrapped, and the article started again, focussed on actually, what are the philosophical (epistemological, ontological) questions here. Jheald (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more ref: This background material [20] for a course by Gábor Hofer-Szabó on "Philosophy of Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics" gives a useful overview of historical technical development, through which some of the philosophical issues peek through (and I like the advice to try to identify the "point of intractability"). Jheald (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his more fleshed-out notes [21] for a course [22], which conclude with this interesting set question: "Where does coarse-graining come from? Limited capacity of the observer? Does equilibrium make sense to creatures with unlimited capacity? Does coarse-graining have any physical basis or it is plainly arbitrary?" -- what is it we seek from a scientific theory? Jheald (talk)

Note: This discussion has been highlighted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Jheald (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and does not provide any useful encyclopedic information that is not already outside the article.--MaoGo (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Declaring something non-notable does not make it so ipse dixit. Several contributors have offered sources. If you wish to argue for nn ex post facto then it is incumbent on you to give a rationale why those sources do not meet GNG. SpinningSpark 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's definitely a notable topic here, as the references provided above demonstrate. The only question is whether it is easier to fix up the current page or go the WP:TNT route. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubbify. There's a substantial and valid topic here - that completely fails to be addressed by current article contents. Looks as if it needs to be rewritten from scratch; we might as well replace contents with a one paragraph precis until that happens. I find Jheald's outlines of what could be done here convincing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I went ahead and stubbified the page, while adding one of @Jheald's questions above. Here is the previous revision, for reference's sake. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important topic as per Elmidae. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, and now the irrelevant material has been removed, we have a servicable stub. There are numerous sources that can be used to build a good article from this. Book sources include;
- Martinas et al., Thermodynamics: History And Philosophy - Facts, Trends, Debates [23]
- Hoyer, Thermodynamics and Philosophy: Ludwig Boltzmann, [24]
- Sklar, Physics and Chance: Philosophical Issues in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics, [25]
- Ernst & Hüttemann, Time, Chance, and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics, [26]

SpinningSpark 22:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename something to the effect of "Philosophy of Thermodynamics"; a more inclusive and well-known name. That said, with such title the current stub has potential for expansion and improvement. -John M Wolfson (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this rename. Statistical physics is the essential feature that links phenomenological thermodynamics to more fundamental mechanics. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

How about a move to "Philosophy of statistical physics" or "Philosophy of thermodynamics and statistical physics" (although the latter is a bit long)? The current name seems overly obscure and clunky, IMO, although I'd like to generate more consensus on the name if felt appropriate. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I actually considered proposing a rename to "Philosophy of thermodynamics and statistical physics". It is longer, in terms of character count, but it's easier to digest. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clutter is gone, and with it the concerns about possible Original Research. We have by now more than enough references to establish notability. No policy-based argument for deletion stands. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there was very much in the article that was genuinely OR, just uncited which is not the same thing. An expanded article would doubtless have to have some discussion of the laws of thermodynamics, but I agree with its removal for the present – there is no point to it if it is not in the context of imparting philosophical ideas, which is what the article is supposed to be about. SpinningSpark 15:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a difference between what "Original Research" often means and "miscellaneous pile of probably roughly correct, uncited material that meanders about the stated topic without really contacting it". XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jheald found a college course and other evidence this is a real thing and gets coverage. Dream Focus 18:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited in the last four keeps. This is a content dispute, not a reason to WP:AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Dream Machine[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG, Dream Machine is only a minor section of sony's products. Reads like an Advertisement and wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Best course of action would be to start over and rewrite the article from the ground up or merge. Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Product section size irrelevant. The blurb about advertising is false: it is purely technical description of rather vintage devices. Of course, the language looks like copied from adverts, but this is easy to fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this should pass WP:GNG. The parts that read like an advertisement are taken from reviews. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. A significant line of products, suitable for an article. Some of the parts that read likeadvertisements may be not reviews, but puffery, and are in any case easy to remove. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expenditure management commission[edit]

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

De-PRODed with a rationale I'm struggling to understand. Minor advisory body; little-to-no coverage in RS besides the announcement of its creation. Any coverage that this body has received or will receive will have to be covered at Premiership of Narendra Modi or elsewhere, as being related to national policy. No obvious target for a redirect, except possibly the page mentioned above. Delete, or redirect at best. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD opposition not very strong, but it's there so treating this as WP:NOQUORUM just yet seems inappropriate without at least a further attempt at input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is hardly a minor body. The subsidies that it was examining are a fundamental part of India's economy and any changes would probably have significant effects on voting patterns. The references are enough to establish notability, and I added additional ones about the delivery of the commission's interim and final reports. The capitalisation in the title is wrong. The article should be moved to Expenditure Management Commission Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The promise of this commission seems to have been a political issue for some time. Business India notes in 1997 that the commission has not yet been realised, meaning that the issue dates back even further than 97. Something that has been a matter for political comment over several decades is more than a "minor advisory body". The reports of the commission are always newsworthy with substantial articles: NDTV, 2014, Economic Times, 2014, The Hindu, 2014, NDTV, 2016. SpinningSpark 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant political body with SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:BIO1E case. There are only two opposing views, and only one of these makes a cogent argument. The other is an appeal to WP:IAR, which only works if it is explained how exactly ignoring the rules in this case would improve Wikipedia. But no such argument is made here. Sandstein 08:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chael[edit]

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

There is already some discussion of his potential notability on his talk page, where the consensus so far is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that any coverage of him belongs in other articles at this point.

He is a postdoc born in 1990/91, who earned his bachelor's degree in 2013 and who just recently started his career in research. He was one of over 300 people who contributed to the Event Horizon Telescope project. While the project is notable itself, it doesn't in itself confer individual notability to the over 300 people who were involved with it. Many members of the team have in fact emphasized that the image was the result of a large collaborative effort and that it isn't appropriate to credit one or a few individuals with it. He also doesn't claim any such credit. This kind of tabloidization, based on the "genius myth"[27], also harms science, as pointed out by some interviewees in a recent NYT article that discussed the case.

The relevant guidelines for assessing his notability are WP:PROF, WP:GNG and WP:1E.

He clearly isn't anywhere near passing WP:PROF – our notability guideline for academics. Those not already familiar with WP:PROF should read the criteria.
While it is possible to be notable under WP:GNG, all the media coverage that he has received relates to single comment he made on social media in response to an image of someone else that was also discussed in social media. That is a textbook case of WP:1E and would at most merit a redirect to a more appropriate article where the issue is covered.

Clearly there is no basis in policy here for keeping the article, other than as a redirect.

Wikipedia has well established standards and procedures for notability, and we can't be bullied into ignoring them by people on social media who lack familiarity with our procedures. Articles like this, and indeed articles on much more accomplished scientists, are routinely challenged on notability. His or anyone else's gender plays no part at all in the considerations of his or anyone else's notability; I'm generally opposed to the phenomenon of creating articles on postdocs or other junior academics the moment they are mentioned in the media, regardless of their gender, when we have specific criteria for academics that set the bar so much higher. I'm also stating here, for the benefit of anyone recruited via social media to come here, that this is a discussion among Wikipedia editors of his notability based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines – it is not a vote. Tataral (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tataral (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. Like the nom mentioned, there are too many scientists. Perhaps we will reach a point where creating articles about scientists will almost be forbidden, but that will be necessary per WP:BLP1E. If this article is deleted, that would be good precedent to delete Katie Bouman, where in the previous AfD some editors admitted to completely ignoring BLP1E because of a random dubious keep closure of an AfD of AOC's chief of staff (who is not even an academic). wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability guidelines. The black hole image received wide national coverage (as the subject also made news defending Katie Bouman, including on CNN, the Washington Post, People magazine, Huffington Post, Fox News, NBC News, and Astronomy magazine, to name a few. It appears a PBS article featuring Bouman prompted the brouhaha, then social media ran with it. As a member of the team, Chael, according to reliable source reporting, wrote most of the code for one of the 3 software imaging pipelines that simulated the black-hole image, while Bouman wrote the algorithm, which is why the two have been singled out from the black-hole team of researchers (although social media seems to have missed the two's true roles). Thus, Chael's role -- and notability -- in creating the black hole image has been shown in the significant coverage in mainstream news that discussed it and is still covering the issue. This is not a WP:BLP1E. Besides the significant role the subject played in simulating the Black Hole image, his notability is also shown in his having received a NASA Hubble fellowship and a Harvard award for best disertation. Add that to his continuing work on the Black Hole through his post-graduate research work at the Black Hole Initiative and as an assistant professor at Harvard, and notability is shown. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Also, can the nom User:Tataral please name the source of the 300 number of researchers working on the black-hole image? I cannot find that mentioned anywhere. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability guidelines and criteria specifically? It does not follow from the fact that the black hole image itself has received media coverage that Chael is also notable, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the image is mainly his work, as opposed to a collaborative effort in which he played a part along with many other people, or that his role was such a large one compared to those other people. The number 300+ was mentioned in a recent article in The Washington Post, but I see that the number 200+ is also mentioned by many sources[28]. It doesn't matter for this discussion whether it was 200+ or 300+.
- Also, a dissertation award from one's own university doesn't confer any notability, as anyone who has ever read WP:PROF will be aware of. What constitutes a "a highly prestigious academic award" under WP:PROF is discussed in detail and it's stated explicitly that "internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose" and that "victories in academic student competitions at [...] university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements [...] do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1".
- There is no evidence of him being an assistant professor anywhere (he is only listed with the title Graduate Student on the Harvard website), and the rank of assistant professor does absolutely not confer any notability. The WP:PROF criterion based on academic rank requires "a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution", at the very opposite end of the career spectrum. In general an assistant professor is a neophyte academic. --Tataral (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is imperative that we delete this page as soon as possible. I've just checked, and the Wikipedia servers are completely out of space. We've amassed too much knowledge, and are sinking under the sheer weight of it. People who Google things are coming to our site, and we simply cannot keep up anymore! Indeed, if we do not delete this right now I might not even have enough space to finish typing this sente TheOther Bob 23:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, right, User:TheOtherBob? Please strike through your !vote so that it is not included and counted as part of this discussion. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st is thataway <===. Besides, we've ordered fresh supplies of virtual paper and are expecting delivery any microsecond now. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The established rules of Wikipedia are against this article: specifically, WP:BIO1E, as well as WP:BLP1E, would suggest that it should merely be a redirect to the actual event that this person is a part of, and they don't (yet) qualify under WP:ACADEMIC, either; however, the rules themselves may be wrong, outdated and/or overly-established. We as Wikipedia editors should exercise our judgement similar to the concept known as Jury nullification, and vote to keep even if the subject is not eligible for an article based on the established rules of kingdom, on the sole basis that we may disagree with said rules. (In fact, in doing so, we'll be following the precedent already set in the prior AfD about this event.) MureninC (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The other AfD was based on largely the same rationale as the one outlined here. However, while neither Chael nor Bouman are notable as academics (WP:PROF), there is a difference between them in the coverage they received (and thus their GNG-derived notability); the coverage of Bouman (most of it from after the article was created and indeed nominated for deletion) has been much more extensive and focused directly on her, while the coverage of Chael was merely about him weighing in on the coverage of Bouman itself, and it was of a much more limited and narrow (1E) nature. I therefore don't think there is a relevant precedent either way here. --Tataral (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may well not have been the article creator's intent, but it comes across as a WP:POINTy "what about the men?" creation as part of the sexist backlash against Katie Bouman's new-found fame for the black hole image. Like Bouman, it is too early in his career for WP:PROF notability. And like Bouman, participation in the project by itself is not cause for notability (not even enough of one to save this from BIO1E); the question is the depth and long-term significance of the media coverage specifically about the subject. Unlike Bouman, who has had in-depth profiles published on her in connection with the black hole image story and then a second wave of coverage about the sexism, Chael is not singled out among the other 200 researchers on that project in the media coverage of the project itself. The only non-trivial coverage of Chael himself is for his elevation as a hero by the sexists and for his repudiation of that elevation. So the media coverage is both significantly less extensive and also more problematic with respect to BIO1E (the only thing he is known for is that some trolls picked his name out of a hat among all the other men they could have picked). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bouman's 2nd wave of coverage was directly connected to the reaction to the first wave of coverage, and in an unhappy way. I don't think keeping Bouman's article satisfies WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 06:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant here, except inasmuch as Chael's case is clearly much weaker, so if you don't think she should be notable then you should agree that Chael isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against possibly recreating at a later date, as it seems plausible enough that he might come to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. (For example, if he becomes one of the "public faces" of the EHT collaboration during their next announcements, then BIO1E would be irrelevant.) Prizes for "best doctoral thesis" are insufficient for WP:PROF#C2; his fellowship is the kind that pays for a postdoc, not the "lifetime achievement award" that is being elected Fellow of a highly selective society, as required for WP:PROF#C3. I wouldn't object to stashing the page in User or Draft space, since I don't see anything really troublesome about the text itself, and the situation might change within the typical expiration timeframe of Draft pages. Bouman is wiki-notable; Chael isn't (yet). XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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