Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 April	27 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 keep. Seems like the (somewhat thin) GNG claims and the PROF claims have convinced participants that the subject meets inclusion criteria Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Geambasu[edit]

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

Geambasu is mentioned in a handful of news articles but only as passing mentions (most were about projects she had worked on, e.g. the Google incident, XRay, Vanish); there isn't any significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.

She clearly doesn't satisfy criteria 2-9 of WP:NACADEMIC and her research doesn't meet criterion 1 (yet) by the standard citation metrics: Web of Science (6 papers with 12 citations), Scopus (14 papers with 159 citations). Seven of those papers have more than 50 citations on Google Scholar, but those include self-published / non-peer-reviewed sources (cf WP:NACADEMIC#Citation metrics). — MarkH21 (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not yet formulated an opinion on her notability but the nominator's use of WOS/Scopus and disparagement of GS, by far the better database for computer science, is problematic. See the last bullet point of WP:PROF and the references cited there. The major professional associations in computer science have cautioned against using the commercial databases for computer science because, by focusing on journal publication (which in computer science is largely secondary to conference publication) they introduce significant distortions and omissions. And I don't see any non-peer-reviewed publications listed among her ten most cited publications on GS; note that, in computer science, most conferences are both peer-reviewed and highly selective. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of WOS and Scopus relates to how WP:PROF says the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. I agree that it has limitations, both within and outside computer science, and should be used with caution. I also didn't mean that her publications were not peer-reviewed, but that some of the citations of her publications were from non-peer-reviewed sources. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you even reading what I wrote? Journal articles are not how computer science is primarily published. So a quote about how to find citations to journal articles in most subjects is very far from relevant. And WP:PROF explicitly warns, based on warnings in reliably published sources from major academic societies, that in computer science indexes based on journal publication are bad. Not just "use with caution" but "do not use" level bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I read what you wrote, recognized that one should not focus solely on journal publications, paraphrased what is literally written in WP:PROF: "these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential", and finally pointed out your misunderstanding of what I wrote. In any case, every single paper that appears in Scopus and WOS for this author is from conference proceedings, and I think that the Google Scholar citations are probably not enough to count as "extremely highly cited" or a "substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" (WP:PROF#C1). — MarkH21 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the area of computer science research she is in, one should not focus on journal publications at all. They are almost completely irrelevant. (Other areas of CS such as mine do still value journals, if less than conferences.) For instance Geambasu herself only has two journal papers according to DBLP, one of those two is actually an editorial in a trade magazine, and she probably only has the other one because of what people in this area call the "tenure tax": you have to waste your time making journal papers that nobody will read because it looks bad at tenure time to have zero. And when journal papers are so irrelevant to the field, an index that includes conference papers only as an afterthought will introduce significant distortions in its citation patterns. Those indexes are not usable. The fact that GS occasionally includes some preprints is much less problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, that's why I agreed that WOS and Scopus has limitations (even with the WOS Conference Proceedings database of 180,000 conference proceedings which I included in my search) and should be used with caution and why I included the GS citations. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I wasn't disqualifying GS from the discussion, but making a note that some of the numbers are made up of preprints and self-published notes. But even off of the GS citations, I still think it falls just short of PROF#C1 given the number of citations typical of her field. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Despite all that, I think the case for notability through WP:PROF#C1 is a little weak. She has one heavily-cited paper on Vanish (her work as a graduate student in a project led by someone else), another paper with 100+ citations, and the rest down in double digits, nothing special in a high-citation field. The reason I ended up siding with keep is that she also has a lot of media coverage for her work, both among the articles now cited as sources from high-profile publications (NYT, NPR, Slate, PopSci etc) and among others that could have also been cited but would have been redundant. They cover at least three aspects of her work (Vanish, XRay, and the Gmail findings) and include media from both the US and Romania. I think it's enough for WP:PROF#C7 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For WP:GNG, I'll disagree because most the articles do not give significant coverage of Geambasu (as opposed to the various projects). They're mostly passing mentions of her or brief quotes from her. Linking the articles here for reference: NYT, NPR, Slate (fr translation), PopSci (this one is probably sigcov), Network World, Columbia (not independent of subject), Tech Review. I couldn't find the Romanian coverage mentioned above. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - For people known for their scholarly work, we expect in-depth coverage of their scholarly work, not of their taste in food or their travels to exotic resorts. Just like, for athletes we expect coverage of their athletic accomplishments and for politicians we expect coverage of their political achievements. It is shallow and nonsensical to demand that academics meet the standards of celebrities, to have the coverage about them be about their personal life instead of the thing they are actually known for doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are in-depth articles that do focus on famous academics, but many great intellectuals don't have such articles written about them. That's what WP:PROF is for. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because a very small number of academics are treated as celebrities doesn't mean that the only academics we can cover are the ones that are also celebrities. As for Romanian coverage, I suppose you didn't notice the one already in the article? But here's another. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Again like I said, that's what WP:PROF is for. Most academics pass via WP:PROF and not WP:GNG. For an article about a person, the subject in "significant coverage... of the subject" from GNG is the person. And yes, I didn’t notice the Romanian reference because it wasn't in the article until your !vote. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rather weak keep?~~ GS is the appropriate data base to use for WP:Prof#C1, but her citation record is slender by the standards of most computer scientists. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein's comment. --Tataral (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, keep I think the case for her passing WP:PROF#C7/WP:GNG is acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the arguments both for WP:PROF and WP:GNG seem to have been made acceptably. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 2 May 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 The Demonata. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Demonata characters[edit]

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

Zero references. Fails WP:GNG. 9³ (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Demonata, excessive detail/fancruft that can be summarized in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Demonata per above. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Demonata per above. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this article contains exactly zero sources. There is therefore no content in it that could legitimately be merged anywhere. Replacing it with a redirect might be acceptable. Reyk _YO! 09:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Darren Shan, the author of the books, and I confirm that the details listed on this page are correct. I would like it if this page was left intact, as it is a very quick and convenient way for fans (and, indeed, myself!) to reference all of the characters from the series. As confirmation that I am who I say I am, I have provided a link to this page in the May issue of my monthly newsletter, the Shanville Monthly: https://www.darrenshan.com/news/shanville-monthly/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.27.121 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Unfortunately even word of god statements don't meet WP:V unless in a secondary reliable source. If you're interested in a wiki as a platform for content that doesn't really fit the scope of Wikiepdia's general focus, might I suggest creating a fan wiki? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Darren's request seems reasonable and topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Demonata per above. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 3 May 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) 00:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh Sandhu[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates any notability. Not a single RS although several blog/review/sales sites. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources, non notable singer. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:57, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Arvay[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played less than 200 games in the Slovak Extraliga so fails #2. Tay87 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria... playing with a puck does not necessarily make you notable. Spyder212 (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant coverage and playing on a junior national team does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Meets no notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Ball-Malone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are either not about her, not independent of the subject, or are about her relationship with someone notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, does not meet notability criteria, few secondary sources, none of which address her as subject. Spyder212 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources to it if it helps. There are two secondary sources at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibln (talk • contribs) 12:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NCOLLATH for college athletes and coaches - Epinoia (talk) 19:16, 3 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Chovan[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Not enough games played in Slovak Extraliga to pass criteria #2. Tay87 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria... playing with a puck does not necessarily make you notable. Spyder212 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 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) 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Mohjit Vijayji[edit]

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

This was a userified AfC submission that was moved into mainspace by its' creator. I really doubt Vijayii is notable, however. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the four refs provided 3 and 4 are useless for notability. 1 and 2 are to the Times of India, with pieces written 9 and 16 years after his death (I.e. not just obituaries), which suggests he was a well-known national figure. Possibly sources in Indian languages? Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hinting towards a renowned Jain scholar new ref 3 suggests that he is visionary behind a research institute of Jain scriptures , seems to be erudite in Jain scriptures. Laxmansih123 —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTN WP:NRV referring these rules article needs content improvement but sources seems sufficient for notability. Laxmansih123 4:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep - the Times of India publishing a memorial article about him nine years after his death alone would be enough - he'll have obituaries. Still a stub of a page that needs a lot of work. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Added new reference no. 4,which is one of the most circulated Gujarati newspaper - Gujarat Samachar . Article is of the year 2003 , three years after he passed away . Palash Pinu Jain (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with additional comment to Indian colleagues adding references. One reason it is hard for non-Indian editors to find sources, and indeed why they may put up articles up for deletion, is because Indian names can be so complex. This article is about a man called Muni Mohjit Vijayji. Some of the sources added in the last week don’t make any reference to this name at all. For example this and this. I’m going to take it in good faith that ‘Yugbhushan Suri Maharaj, also known as Pandit Maharaj‘ and ‘Achayra Guru Yugbhushan Suri ji Maharaj (Pandit Maharaj)‘ are the same person as the topic of this article. What we need however, as well as references, is some additional content in the opening section explaining some of the different names this person is known by, and, if possible, what their significance is. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 3 May 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Toogood Smith[edit]

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

For reasons that still haven't been completely figured out, random unnotable relatives of John Lennon have "Good" articles based on anecdotes derived from 2 books that have absolutely nothing to do with them, namely The Beatles – The Biography by Bob Spitz and Many Years From Now by Barry Miles. Now my question is, what did this George Toogood Smith person do of note? Being John Lennon's uncle by marriage? Notability is not inherited. Take the Beatles book out of this article and what do you even have–2 Daily Mail "sources" (that website is BANNED on here) and a picture of his house. This is unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In-depth coverage from reliable sources is always acceptable, even if it is in a book primarily about another topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but still, no notability was derived from it at any rate. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person was not some random relative of John Lennon. He was Lennon's father figure for about ten years and Lennon lived in his home. He helped educate and shape the personality and world view of one of the most famous musicians of the 20th century. Oh, feel free to remove the Daily Mail stuff. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a father figure to a future famous person is not notability. WP:NOTINHERITED. Trillfendi (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that essay carefully, because it seems to me that you may misunderstand it. You are correct that an assertion by a Wikipedia editor that someone was a "father figure" to someone exceptionally famous is not a legitimate claim of notability. That is definitely not the case here. Every serious biography of John Lennon discusses this man as a major influence on Lennon. It is significant coverage in reliable sources that makes a topic notable, and that applies to this case. There is a reason that there is no Wikipedia biography about his biological father Alfred Lennon. Smith was a much greater and more notable influence on John Lennon than his actual father Alfred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention that.... Until about 2 weeks ago, Alfred Lennon had a Featured Article on this website until someone had the good sense to merge. It’s madness really. Trillfendi (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "madness" is, in my opinion, highly idiosyncratic, and radically different from mine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madness is giving good article or featured article status to family members of famous people just because they existed, when merging was the only reasonable and logical feat to begin with. There are editors on this website who really believe that people deserve articles because they want to know more about their “idols” and that by deleting, merging, or delisting from Good Article status it’s an insult to their idol and makes them “less important.” Someone actually said that shit. It’s like Beatles mania clouds critical thought on here for many people. So yes, madness indeed. Trillfendi (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Obvious keep~~. Extensively covered in The Beatles literature as a major influence on John Lennon. Official "Good Article" of Wikipedia. GA-Class in WikiProject Biography. GA-Class and Mid-importance in The Beatles WP. gidonb (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being a Good Article doesn’t prevent deletion. Though people usually decide to merge instead. 2) Extensive “coverage” in Beatles literature does not equate to notability. Look at this article. It literally just says a farmer got married (two paragraphs—wow), happened to be the fun uncle to a future famous person, and died. Where. Is. The. Notability. Is it in this anecdote Smith taught the four-year-old Lennon to read by reading out loud the headlines of the Liverpool Echo,[16] read him nursery rhymes at night, and later taught Lennon how to solve crossword puzzles. or this one: Smith often took Lennon and his cousins to the cinema or the park, even though he worked at night and early in the morning on the farm and his milk round. When the cousins played outside Smith allowed them to eat meals with their hands in the garden shed.? Trillfendi (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. You point out that good articles hardly ever get deleted. Since this is correct, I'm changing my opinion from obvious keep (now struck through) to speedy keep. As you evidently understood that this is a baseless and chanceless nomination, the very nomination of this article instead of a proposal for a merger (which you perceived to have a chance) is a deliberate waste of everyone's time. That warrants speedy keep rather than obvious keep. Neglected in your response is that I also pointed out that this article is of mid-importance (!!!) to The Beatles Project. That should have again made you pause and think, beyond the much-deserved quality grades and recognition for this article, about whether this nomination is a good idea or a waste of community resources for WP:POINT. 2. Extensive coverage in central Beatles literature does in fact carry an article across the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that good articles can get deleted (any article can get deleted) but the better choice leads to merging. Reading comprehension. And mid-importance in a project is no barometer, I’m sure Alfred Lennon’s article was of much, much higher importance as a featured article before his was merged. And you see what happened.... (And it’s amazing how an article went from feautred to having only 2 mentions in the merged article. Telling, really.) If “he took his nephew to the movies” is notability then no wonder nobody takes this website seriously. Trillfendi (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, if you truly believe that "nobody takes this website seriously", then please stop wasting your time by making disruptive deletion nominations. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking everything literally (Wikipedia is not a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. Brain—use it. Why would I even be an editor who’s created 95 articles if I didn’t see an implicit value in this website), look at what was actually said, which is George Toogood did nothing notable instead of being related to John Lennon by marriage and live in the same house. You can’t prove notability beyond that. No amount of anecdotes in Beatles biographies will do that either. Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those "anecdotes", if part of books issued by reliable publishers, are the significant coverage that establishes notability on Wikipedia, and an article that summarizes such sources is legitimate. There are far more available sources about this person than now appear in the article, as shown by a Google Books search. If you do not believe that "nobody takes this website seriously", then please do not say so in community discussions. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find useful information in nominator's responses. Just the usual distractions. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome to disagree, Gidonb. It’s just ironic that your comment isn’t “useful” either. Trillfendi (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. You are first submitting an admittedly unnecessary procedure, then constantly bludgeoning under the opinion of each individual person participating in this discussion, maximizing the damage that you can cause to Wikipedia and showing here and elsewhere blatant disrespect for community decisions, procedures, and members in word choice and endless arguments. This is why I'm at speedy keep and doubling down on speedy keep! gidonb (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t care what your personal issue is toward me, that’s best left on a user talk page, but it has no logical correlation with a vote to keep. If your vote is based on opinion of notability by relation to Lennon though, we agree to disagree. Like I said, you have the right to disagree with the deletion proposal; it doesn’t change why I did it or why this is technically the second one. And you don’t control how I type. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the constant bludgeoning at so many pages. That is disruptive behavior and needs to be addressed elsewhere. Focusing ONLY on this page, the fact that you submit by your own submission a chanceless proposal, probably for WP:POINT, then keep bludgeoning, leads me to speedy keep. The speedy is important as you indicate that this has no chance and because of the damage to the Wikipedia community as long as this is open. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not being worthy or whatever of being a good article is not grounds for deletion. Why was this even nominated for deletion besides personal angst? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you can’t differentiate between lack of notability expressed in this article and what some editor decided to promote it to 10 years ago before retiring from Wikipedia. Nobody ever said being a good article was grounds for deletion. Apparently 13 years ago, when the article had a different name, there was no consensus on keeping. Trillfendi (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well today there does appear to be a clear consensus on notability. Il repeat a point that was made above because I think you might have missed it "Those "anecdotes", if part of books issued by reliable publishers, are the significant coverage that establishes notability on Wikipedia,” please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG before nominating more pages for deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gidonob, Cullen and Horse Eye Jack Lubbad85 (☎) 15:17, 29 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 consensus is an obvious keep even though there was no valid reason given for deletion (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Blandre[edit]

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

It seems this individual has no works in English, just French, there is no interest for english speaking people Josef Kapp (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bernard Blandre[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether this individual is notable or not, but the reason offered for deletion is not acceptable. Not having works in English is not a reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I haven't looked into this individual enough to have an opinion of their notability, the nomination does not provide a valid reason for deletion. Having their works be in a language other than English has no bearing on meeting the criteria for having an article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I proposed and worded this way, it is because notability is also here linked to availability of works in English. If works were important, some would have been produced or translated in English, which is academics lingua franca since decades. --Josef Kapp (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the humanities, many scholars write in their native language. The sciences are a different matter (but there traditionally were a lot of Russian-language scientific journals – perhaps they are still being published). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. That the fact that an individual has books in French, but not English, does not mean that they are not notable. MarkZusab (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said, we have no valid deletion rationale. But on the assumption that we need a reason to keep, and not just a lack of reason to delete: I found five reviews of his books on JSTOR [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the humanities the top ranking scholarship is normally carried on in the languages of a place. So the arguements to delete here totally fail. However notability needs to be proactively asserted, and I have not been able to determine that, so for now I am not weighing in on that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced, and WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Just because it's not in English doesn't mean it's not notable. Seems to be notable as an author.Sandals1 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 3 May 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. Per consensus that sufficient sources exist. There was only one statement for a rename so I haven't implemented that, but editors are free to move in the normal fashion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-blind[edit]

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

This looks like WP:OR, or entirely made up. The article cites no reliable sources to support its contention that there is such a thing as "gender-blindness" in the sense of a movement or notion to disregard gender altogether. When the term is used in sources, it seems to mean different things, e.g., gender-blind casting (selecting actors without regard to gender), which isn't what this article describes. Sandstein 16:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has been around for 12 years and is more relevant than ever. It's not so terrible, although it could use many hands to update it, add points of view, and add citations. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename as Gender blindness per WP:NOUN. Sources exist that seem to examine the subject in some depth (GBooks, Scholar), so WP:GNG appears to be met. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sangdeboeuf: Can you cite one of these sources? I see a lot of mentions of the topic, but no clear definition or analysis, and the word seems to be used in several different senses and contexts. Sandstein 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of these sources are explicitly about "gender blindness". The term is used in different contexts, true, which I think makes it suitable for a broad-concept article. The common theme in sources I've looked at seems to be that gender blindness is the attitude that gender no longer matters (like color blindness is to race) or that ignoring gender altogether is preferable.
    Some examples: "Gender-blindness is grounded in the Platonian ideal that sex is the difference that makes no difference"; "First wave feminism ... tended to be gender-blind in the sense that it wished to claim equality between the sexes and to subsume their differences under a common 'humanity.'"; "Organizational theory I have argued, is gender-blind ... The gendered nature of organizational life is generally ignored, and there is no recognition that women's work experiences may be different to that of men's"; "Two popular tactics are gender blindness and color blindness—that is, pretending to be blind to gender and to race"; "The widespread suggestion that mainstream management theory ... fails to recognise the relationship between management and gender, is known as 'gender blindness'"; "the collective mechanisms through which gender is rendered implicit and depicted as irrelevant i.e. the rationales and ways of thinking which constitute gender blindness". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs here, here, and here. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It reads like a low-quality high school essay and is poorly sourced. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable topic, article is not in bad shape enough to be draftified I feel. It has a lead section and a clearly defined topic. But it is in need of serious attention and expansion.★Trekker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs some TLC but nominating it for deletion feels like unwarranted issue pushing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:00, 29 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) 00:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Teten[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person who fails WP:BIO. Adam9007 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced promotion, fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:20, 27 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 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel González (racing driver)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. No claim of notability for the page, and the subject does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria, poor secondary sources. Spyder212 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the GNG and one failed attempt to qualify does not show notability as a pickup truck race driver. Sandals1 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 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 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Cube[edit]

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

A non-notable and, as far as I can tell, defunct product. The article cites no references to reliable sources. Upon doing some searches, I found no additional information on either this product, or its creator. The only results, aside from mirrors of this Wikipedia article, are simply the patent information for the device. Note that there have been several other products over the years referred to as a "Mobile Cube", but they have no relation to this water-purification device. Rorshacma (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources. A search for Mobile Cube+Robert Niederer brings up a few patents but that's all. Nothing more. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, no RS. Spyder212 (talk) 04:46, 27 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 19:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGovern (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I could not find RS about him. This page was originally brought to my attention by @Bearian:, who is the creator of this article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for failing WP:NACTOR. A handful of generic roles (e.g. "Gangster") isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NACTOR, no RS. Spyder212 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only minor film roles and one-episode television roles so does not pass WP:NACTOR as there is also a lack of coverage in rs Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 27 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 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Motor Mafia[edit]

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

An indie video game that does not appear to be notable. The article is unsourced, and I have been unable to locate any reviews from reliable sources discussing it. Its only claim to fame appears to a some awards it won from an equally unnotable gaming website, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. The only results from various searches that come up are generally just entries in gaming databases listing basic data about the game, with no in depth coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Can't find enough sources to establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poor sources. Spyder212 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious WP:GNG fail for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Passing mention on indiegames.com is the only thing I was able to find in my searches. More surprised this somehow was kept for whole 12 years. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:21, 28 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 but begin merge discussion. From reading the discussion it seems like deletion is not favoured although the article appears to have some noteworthy POV and content problems. The merge-or-not discussion is a bit tougher as it looks like it comes down to the reliability of certain sources; the main concern stated by SandyGeorgia appears to be that the stuff that can reliably be sourced is already present elsewhere )and per WP:ATD-M that is certainly a valid reason for a merge) and that the current article is a POV fork. The key counterarguments are by Sakiv (which isn't really policy-based), Dream Focus (a little vague as well), Ali Ahwazi and Mhhossein that there is enough information on this subtopic to make a dedicated article. In my assessment, there is no clear consensus here in favour of a particular action and that the merge-or-not discussion (as also stated by some participants) should be held, with a more in-depth discussion of the POVFORK problem which has been left kind of unaddressed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. intervention in Venezuela[edit]

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

Article violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL, and it currently have reliability and accuracy issues. Like it has happened before with edits on the topic, the article is most likely a result on recentism and the current perspective of the news. I encourage the ongoing merge proposal. Jamez42 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator Jamez42: If you support the merge proposal, then why are you proposing deletion at AfD? By nominating the article after the merge proposal was opened, it makes it look like an attempt to close an editing dispute with AfD, which is a criterion for Speedy Keep. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: I may not be familiarized, but it is my understanding that in a AfD discussions for redirects and merges also take place, while also considering the deletion. If this is not the case, I am confusing the procedures with that of the Spanish Wikipedia. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Those are possible outcomes of an AfD discussion, but in English Wikipedia you can do (non-history-deleting) redirects and merges using other consensus processes. You nominate at AfD if you want to delete the article (including delete-and-redirect). Whether or not it is your intent, it looks like you're trying to use AfD to bypass an already open consensus process on the article you're nominating. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and let the merge proposal run its course. Bakazaka (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want and think the article should be deleted, but understood that said discussion could be continued here. ~~After learning this, I indeed want to withdraw the nomination.~~ --Jamez42 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the mistake was mine. Yes, deletion is the better option, so perhaps removing my merge discussion is the better option at this messed-up point. Could someone who is not a DorkLikeMe please advise? Or just remove my merge proposal if that is the better option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO feedback from the knowledgeable, so I removed my merge proposal, as AFD is the better venue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we carry out the AFD proposal, then I propose to Delete per Jamez42:WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:CRYSTAL, reliability and accuracy issues and recentism. --MaoGo (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a hot mess per all, and I agree we should delete it if the merge doesn't happen. John M Wolfson (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This is a POV fork written almost entirely from biased sources, and that covers no reliably sourced content that isn't already covered in neutral, well sourced articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per points raised below by Mhhossein, it appears that my original inclination may have been correct, and this should be a merge. There is little reliably sourced content here to merge, but the page should Merge and redirect to either United States–Venezuela relations or United States involvement in regime change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, strongly! I'm just puzzled by the arguments provided so far. POV, unrelaible sources and etc are not sufficient for deletion of such a notable topic. Well, the question is that if 'U.S. intervention in Venezuela' is deeply covered by reliable sources, or not. I think the answer is clear and one can see the Chavez-bush era in Venezuela history as the hottest point with US interfering in the Venezuela's affairs. Anyway' let's talk about sources, what we need to prove the notability of the subject in question:

The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela is just a whole book on the U.S. intervention in Venezuela! The book is the further reviewed by Eva Golinger here.
In his Confronting Hugo Chávez: United States "Democracy Promotion" in Latin America, Christopher I. Clement elaborates on the "the ongoing intervention in Venezuela" by US and argues that this intervention should make "us cautious about U.S. toleration of democratic governments in the region."

There are still some more sources:

The Dreamboat That Ran Aground: U.S. Policy Towards Venezuela 1955-1960.
Why the Threat of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela Revives Historical Tensions in the Region
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

More and more sources maybe found if one puts more time on searching for the keywords related to the title and I suggest the article be rewritten by such sources. That said, other concerns raised by users, such as POV issues, should be discussed on the article talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, your points come back to the confusion over whether this should have been at AFD or a merge discussion, and apparently both Jamez42 and I messed it up :) I started a merge discussion because there are reliable sources on the topic, it is a topic that is covered in other articles, this is a POV fork, and the full and balanced NPOV discussion should have stayed in the places where it already existed. On the other hand, what is here is not reliably sourced, so Jamez's thinking was AFD rather than merge (there's nothing to merge). I thought a merge proposal, and redirecting this to those already existing articles was the way to go. Seeing the confusion above, and not knowing what to do next ... I removed the merge proposal. Yes, there are reliable sources. But this is also a POV fork from existing content, lacking in reliably sourced text. This merge turned AFD is a mess, and I don't know what declaration to enter now.

Having said that, The Chavez Code is a highly biased source (read up on the author's relationship to Chavez and what scholars and others think of her work). You mention that the book is reviewed by Eva Golinger-- it is written by Eva Golinger. It is largely debunked by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that there are reliable sources then it's likely a notable topic. POV fork does not apply here, given the existing sources supporting the topic. Moreover, note that WP:BIASED but reliable sources can be used in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mainly since this is a WP:POVFORK of Crisis in Venezuela, somewhat WP:CRYSTALBALLy. Article also merits some WP:TNT for extensive use of Sputnik News, ISNA.IR, mashreghnews.ir, tabnak.ir, alalamtv.net, irna.ir - none of which pass the bar of a WP:RS. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is incoherent as it favours merger but merger can't be done if you delete the page – see WP:MAD. The putative target of the merger,United States–Venezuela relations, has its own problems including several cleanup tags and a recentist lead that only talks about the 21st century. No doubt there is much work to be done but deletion will not be helpful in this. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Although I presume: the used sources can be reliable enough to support the article, I later added several other related sources to increase the credit of the references. Meanwhile, the subject of the article has sufficient notability to be created as an independent page --by using related reliable sources. Moreover, afterwards, I attempted to modify the article in a better balance. Beside, it is indeed a true/remarkable issue that Andrew D. mentioned that the page of United States–Venezuela relations includes its related problems, among tags of ... and so on. P.S., I think keeping this article independently can be more profitable (due to its notability) albeit by doing more related modification(s) on it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources to be found, but you didn't seem to find any of them. In fact, you premised that article's lead on an unattributed opinion piece. Merge is still a better option, as this topic has been and can be covered elsewhere. There's not much that can be salvaged here, and the article would need a complete rewrite from reliable sources; that work is much easier done at US-Ven relations article, that already has a better start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article and replaced the unbalanced, poorly sourced content (which was pretty much all of it) with reliably sourced text from elsewhere. Again, all of this text is available in other articles, this article duplicates content covered elsewhere, and merge and redirect is still a better option; maintaining duplicate content, because an entirely biased article was created, is make-work. It is regrettable that the issue here was obscured via AFD rather than a merge discussion.
Also, considering there are English-language sources, there is no reason for an article to be built entirely on biased Farsi sources; WP:NONENG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some thing is being ignored in your comments; That the materials on US intervention in Venezuela is available elsewhere, it does not mean there should not be an article on this subject. If the subject is notable, which the sources show is, it merits to have a stand alone article. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment I could go into detail of the reasons of why I cited the aforementioned policies, but I think it's better to discuss this if there's no consensus. This discussion has already taken place in the talk page of the US regime change article, what constitutes intervention or not, but the content borders on WP:FRINGE. At some points the article is speculative or has information presented in a mistaken light. As I mentioned, to prevent this from becoming an editorial dispute I think it's better to decide which is the next step. However, I thought it was important to elaborate nomination. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information wouldn't fit well with other articles. Reliable sources are covering this event so it passes the General notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with Dream Focus that reliable sources are covering this event so it passes WP:GNG. WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP come to mind. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe an article about foreign intervention in Venezuela that also includes Russia, Cuba and Colombian paramilitary could be more informative and balanced. --MaoGo (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the same thing. After Sandy's contributions it would be ideal to rename this as Foreign involvement in the Venezuelan crisis. It is way more neutral and balanced. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a generally accepted name on wikipedia for the current crisis or should we include a year in the name? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of American intervention in Venezuela is great even if it is not military. US statements and sanctions must be given a special article.--Sakiv (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for name[edit]

There is no question that there have been multiple nations attempting to manipulate the situation in Venezuela through intervention. If we mention one, we should mention them all, not only to provide NPOV, but to provide more accurate details about the situation. Proposing Foreign intervention in Venezuela.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Article 187, "intervention" could hamstring content. I prefer the suggestion above of Foreign involvement in the 2019 Venezuelan crisis. With a year. We have other articles where editors can dump in historical stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful. It could also help trimming down its main article. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, ZiaLater, and Jamez42: This is not how we decide on the titles. I suggest you make a move request after the AFD is closed. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the current subject of the article (namely: "U.S. intervention in Venezuela") is the best related-subject to present the concept of the article; and such phrase is notable enough based on news/media to have an independent page by such exact name --to clarify the issue directly for the readers. Besides, considering (AFAIK) the major part of Foreign intervention/involvement in Venezuela is related to the U.S.; hence it is better to keep its current name. And at most, to add the new suggested topic "Foreign involvement in the 2019 Venezuelan crisis" in other similar articles such as Crisis in Venezuela, etc. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:30, 2 May 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 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naismith Outstanding Contribution to Basketball[edit]

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

Fails GNG. It's a non-notable award given by an Atlanta-area club. This award doesn't get discussed throughout the basketball season (not even during March Madness when most awards are at least occasionally brought up) and the article itself doesn't justify its importance. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the award is announced, it is not covered in WP:RS. It is not generally covered in a manner that would be supported by WP:GNG. It is not notable at a WP level.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 27 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. Based on the comments, it seems like the "substantial" coverage aspect of GNG is not be met Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Bukenya[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does the claim that he is on Uganda's national team indicate notability? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would if the claim were verified. It's not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gimubrc (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to keep this article, as there's a ton of coverage of him generally. He appeared in Uganda's U23 team and also several times for KCCA in the CAF Champions League Group Stage, the premier continental competition. The issue is he's never been profiled himself in a way we would expect someone to pass WP:GNG and I don't want to vote keep on WP:ILIKEIT grounds, but this doesn't happen all that often in Ugandan sports coverage - he just appears over and over and over and over again in coverage of the Ugandan league, continental cups, and national team, including having his name appear in some headlines as if he's known locally. The league coverage is actually quite good and easily found on the internet. Hopefully it's just a WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 30 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. I don't know who came up with this crazy BLP violation but they better not do this again. I deleted the article already. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating incident between Andy Hui and Jacqueline Wong[edit]

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

Ckh3111 removed the Prod notice without giving an explanation. We don't need a separate article just to detail a "cheating incident" between two celebrities. Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL Hkfilmbuff (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL are not the excuses to delete the article. It is because the incident is also reported in worldwide media. There are many web sources to show the truth of the incident. The media also classifies this as "scandal" because it involved cheating between a famous married single and an engaged artiste in Hong Kong. Ckh3111 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your "logic" (or lack thereof) Jeff Bezos's "cheating scandal", the scandal which he detailed himself, was on the front page of the New York Times, and is causing the sale and possible bankruptcy of the National Enquirer would need an article too. Clearly that's not the case. Trillfendi (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why John Edwards extramarital affair and Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, it is because the ramifications of the incidents (persistent conspiracy between elected officials, baby born, public officer lying about paternity) are of an order of magnitude greater than a couple of "celebrities" having a brief drunken grapple in a taxi. Captainllama (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Merge. Events like this are not notable enough to deserve their own article, especially when both subjects have articles of their own. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Classic low-level celeb gossip that certainly does not need an article about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the subject's articles. WP:NOTGOSSIP --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Edison Chen photo scandal has an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No foreseeable WP:LASTING effect other than broken relationships and some opportunistic memes. _dk (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salacious trivia. Captainllama (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post isnt a tabloid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/andy-hui-apologizes-over-apparent-infidelity-in-hong-kong/2019/04/17/c6984620-60cb-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?noredirect=on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, unless there's a suitable article on the privacy issue to merge to. We have a related article: Legality of recording by civilians. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go, you have answered your own proviso - we do have a suitable article on the privacy issue. Feel free to add the relevant details of this incident to that article, and support the deletion of this cheap gossip-mongering article. Captainllama (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete What the fuck? WP:NOTGOSSIP. (This is insanity.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:46, 26 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, will work to improve article. (non-admin closure) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SJK 171[edit]

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

I can only find only one reference to the subject in RS, and it's in passing. Also, article appears to be almost entirely WP:AB. If decision is not to delete, will need to be very heavily reworked. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis of the list of books featuring his work. This is a graffiti artist who was active decades ago, so online sources will not be readily accessible. However, I certainly agree the article needs to be cleaned up. Sionk (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by submitter Is it possible to move the article to draft, rather than deleting it? I'm happy to work to improve it and try to remove the WP:AB issues, and it it could be submitted for review. I don't know if that path is feasible/allowed without having the page deleted first, WP:DRAFTIFY isn't clear, apologies for my ignorance on this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not need to go to draft, but possibly needs TNT. I have added his real name (Steve Kesoglides), which produces lots of results. I have also remove uncited material and removed two of the three portrait photos, which tended to say "this is my autobiography".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 26 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 Constitution Party (United States). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Citizens Party[edit]

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

Article only links to one sources and is defunct. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Constitution Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 11:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Constitution Party (United States) article: This page doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, but since the party has a different name than the national party, a redirect would be useful. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 11:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Constitution Party (United States).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: - you haven't actually justified this, even if you were just going to opt for a "per nom" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justification: This nonnotable party was a state-level affiliate of the Constitution Party (United States).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 3 May 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 13:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of 40-plus point games by Michael Jordan[edit]

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

Propose deleting per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK with the addition of lack of sources. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems with the addition of such lists being original research:

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Sabbatino (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in procedural order to create an omnibus deletion discussion like this? I agree those pages need to go, but I'm not so sure it's kosher to expand the scope of a deletion discussion in this way. If a patrolling admin could weigh in it'd be appreciated. Gimubrc (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BUNDLE says that it is acceptable. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, no objections - besides, if we delete one, the others should follow for consistency. Gimubrc (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep My main reasoning is this: if LeBron James and Kobe Bryant each have an article of this sort, why shouldn't the undisputed GOAT (who almost has the same number of 40-plus point games as them combined) have one? Paulinho28 (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Both List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James and List of 40-plus point games by Kobe Bryant should be deleted as well. Wikipedia is not a statistics' page and these are purely trivial. A mention about the number of such games in prose is enough. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We don't keep articles purely because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3, because of the arbitrary cutoff: why 40 and not 30 (or 50)? This particular 40-point criterion is not itself more notable than any other. We very recently closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users for the same reason. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remove all regular season 40-plus point game lists. 40-points is too low a threshold to merit an NBA list article. Wilt Chamberlain had 271 such regular-season games in his career, and had two seasons in which he averaged more than this amount (i.e., scoring less than 40 would have been more unusual for him than scoring more than 40 in those seasons). If such a list was created for Chamberlain, it would virtually include a personal 1961-62 season game log, as he had 63 games that season in which he had 40+ points. He had another 52 such games in the following season. — Myasuda (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 as Wikipedia is not a sports statistics encyclopedia. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, and I wonder if we should also nominate the Kobe & LeBron pages too while we're at it. Gimubrc (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate statistical almanac. It is not our job to duplicate anything basketball-reference.com archives. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. List of National Basketball Association single-game scoring leaders is quite sufficient (and sneers at mere 40-point games). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and delete any other list of xx plus point games by Y RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously mentioned, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia for statistics of a player in any sport, it takes up way too much time and effort to go through every. single. season. to chalk down every specific game. While we're at it, this rule can apply to the other two pages, both Kobe's and LeBron's for the exact same reason. It takes too long to edit and verify. If anything, push the point mark higher, say 60+ points, to shorten it down; in not only page length, but timewise too. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each individual's notable achievements are covered well enough on their articlesRollidan (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forty point games isn't really something to state as that really sets the bar low. But I agree on what Cheesy McGee has said and it should really be a higher benchmark but probably instead of 60+ points. Maybe only have it at 50+. Matt294069 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Lists can be notable when most entries have a notable blue link for navigation (e.g. one for every award winner, championship game, person with notable achievement). In this case, there isn't (and shouldn't be) a blue link for each game; each line is about the same person. It's just a mere stat listing with no navigation.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all 3 NOTSTATS is clear. Info can be included in the individual articles if it's not already there.Sandals1 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Put it on his career achievements page. User:Polly7423]] (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTSTATS applies for both standalone or embedded (i.e. merged) lists.—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 2 May 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 13:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gom VPN[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NSOFT. WP:BEFORE provides, well, not much: few mentions in passing, such as one sentence in PC World ([10]). Single in-depth review at a site of dubious reliability ("VPN Critic", [11]). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. The WP:AUD of VPNCritic site is debatable and it doesn't have the general interest of larger review site. I think it's more like a niche magazine and I would liken it to a fishing magazine review a specific pole, and I'd compare the pole to this software. Now if that pole was particularly notable of general interest, it'd have general discussion in depth outside of review magazines specific to the field. Graywalls (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to concerns expressed with regards to retention for articles of this class of product I raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Retention of VPN Products. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTDIR and MILL, same as PureVPN. There is nothing individually notable to these, either commercially or technically. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article from VPN Pro provides somewhat significant coverage, but nothing from that website suggests that it is reliable. feminist (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete far from meeting notability criteria, no reliable sources. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:09, 3 May 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. Sandstein 18:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handheld Group[edit]

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

Non-notabale tech company. All GNews gives me is name-drops (string:"handheld group") and most of the sources cited are utterly useless, with one being dead and another being an archived press release. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google News is terrible when it comes to Swedish news, so I get far more in sv:Mediearkivet, but most of it is still noise. It seems like most sensible sources – the ones writing actual articles, not just listing companies or copying press releases – would ignore "Group" and just call the company "Handheld", but even in a Swedish database, that's proven a bit tricky to use in a search. /Julle (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeek. That's a bit of an issue. Can you think of any exact-string searches that would get you news on the organisation with as little irrelevant results as possible? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My go-to solution in situations like these tend to be to include key people (founders, CEOs and so on) which will leave out some relevant results but at least tend to include only news about the organisation and hopefully keep in-depth coverage, but I haven't had time to dig into this. (I'm not sure it's the best solution, so if anyone reading this has any better ideas in general, please feel free to tell me on my talk page if it's not related to this discussion.) /Julle (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Desir (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Overly promotional page for Non notable filmmaker. Stuff full of unsourced personal info and opinion. Uses sources like Classmates and RateMyProfessors.I'm very suprised this got approved through AFC. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. this one is probably the best source about his filmmaking but that just has a capsule review. He is also an acedemic but his postitions are not high enough for WP:PROF. There is a news event about not getting tenure but that is just a minor event, not the basis for a blp. (Even if you disagree with that last bit this article would need some TNT). A search (hindered by the footballer) found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~' In 2013 I saw an even more over-personal promotional Draft version of this, and approved it after removing much of the promotionalism . In 2018 a different spa than the first editor added back most of what I removed, and not surprisingly it then attracted attention, leading to this AfD. If there is notability , it is as a film-maker, and it would in large part depend on "The Gods & The Thief." which was included in several relatively minor festivals, but including a collective exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art. It was probably the Whitney exhibit that led me to think it possibly worth accepting. I am much less sure I would have accepted it now, and the foolish attempt to restore promotionalism makes the purpose of the article obvious. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot fund good sources and the article sources are very poor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found reliable sources, cited them, tightened writing, removed POV, duplicate info and dup sources. While the article still needs work, it passes notability guidelines. Also, the subject is cited in several books as a cinematographer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2019
Commment @AuthorAuthor:, I have to disagree with that... of the three sources you added in your edits (thank you) there is one from UCLA (not independent) and two from the Berkeley Beacon that deal with the racial issues of a tenure denial At Emerson College. (Ironically, and just speaking generally, you get denied tenure for the same reason you get denied at AfD: lack of independent recognition of your work.) The Berkeley Beacon is Emerson's in-house student newspaper, unless I am mistaken. He was a student at UCLA, and a professor at Emerson, so those are not independent sources. Taken all together, that is not much improved in terms of sourcing from what we had at nomination. I also went looking for the books you mentioned and could only find trivial or passing mentions, so if you can point those out that would be appreciated.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Student newspapers may have significant editorial independence, so they may not necessarily present a conflict of interest when discussing WP:IIS, particularly when they're criticising their own administration. Also, besides not being very independent, the UCLA source is pretty indiscriminate. romnempire (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the films had gotten widespread distribution (box office or television) and a bit of press in addition to the exhibitions, it would be a keeper but with some much needed work. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I consider the current article much more satisfactory as an article, although notability is still uncertain. (But surely you can find better evidence for his college positions than rate my professors and a former student's reminiscence) DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're currently on the fence here it seems as far as consensus goes - relisting to see if some more discussion can come to light with DGG crossing the aisle to a weak keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of these sources fail our test for independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications.

Sources 1-6 are published by places where he worked or studied.
Source 7 is an indie film blog.
Source 8 is UCLA, where he studied.
Source 9 is presumably a film index:Movingimagesource.us.
Source 10 and 11 are film festival listings for the Amiens International Film Festival". not independent.
Source 12 is an event listing for Emerson, where he worked.
Source 13 is the first evidence of coverage: a paragraph in the Chicago Tribune.
Source The last ref is a Worldcat entry, which we probably should not be using.

Does he meet some kind of filmmaker notability test? If not, this is a clear GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment - Your conclusions about the sources are not accurate.

Sources 2 and 3 are the The Berkeley Beacon, an Emerson College newspaper. College/university newspapers are historically known for their independent journalism and not influenced by the institutions they write about, and college newspapers are financed independently through ads student advertising staff get.
Source 4 is the Bay State Banner, an independent traditional newspaper with a readership mostly in the African-American communities of Boston, Mass.
Source 5 is the Ithaca College News, another independent college newspaper not funded by the college it covers. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor, student newspapers published from within the institution they are covering are not independent sources. They are published by people who believe in their own institution, generally, and when writing about institutional subjects they are subject to many conflicts of interest. They also write about subjects of internal interest. It's essentially a semi-inependent an institutional organ. The objectivity is not the same as something outside of the institution. IN any case, the fact that the article relies on so many sources connected to places where he has taught, and not on independent recognition in the general press, is indicative of the lack of notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a professor (fails WP:NPROF), as a filmaker (no reviews of his works, no indication they are significant, fails WP:NCREATIVE) and in general (fails WP:NBIO - there's a bit of niche coverage due to WP:ONEEVENT of him getting fired and trying to make it into a civil rights issue...). Nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't seem notable as a filmmaker or professor and I don't believe the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm going with a weak delete because I can only see one film he participated in that appears to be even barely notable enough, as far as being on Wikipedia is concerned. But the otherwise weak sourcing keeps me on the delete side.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 3 May 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJets[edit]

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

Tiny airline ("fleet size: 10"). Does a bad job of asserting notability; all it really says that is that it exists. Eman 235/talk 10:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fleet size of 10 is not tiny at all for a charter service (compare others under Category:Charter airlines). Plenty of sustained news coverage that should easily satisfy the GNG.[12][13][14][15][16] --Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources found by Paul are not terrible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012 meets WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 22:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Sources look good. BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons of those wanting to keep this article, article could use expanding though. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:10, 1 May 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 arguments citing WP:BIODEL are most convincing. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Dobson[edit]

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

Here is the reality. I am Ewan Dobson. I am not famous enough at all to have my own article. I am a private person who does not pursue fame. I don't have a number one record, If I book a tour only 10 people will come to each show, sometimes none. This page only exists because of a few friend fans who put it up.

Plenty of people have won guitar competitions and have viral videos from a time in the past, and don't have a wikipedia page. I am not even close enough to being famous for this, and I frankly don't want one.

Delete I would have voted keep, however the subject above asks for a delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some additional sourcing to demonstrate that Dobson meets WP:MUSIC. He's gotten significant press attention in Canada consistent with inclusion here. Chubbles (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete The article appears to be promotional and the subject is not notable Gristleking (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of a previous voter. —DoRD (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIODEL. Strictly speaking, having a Wikipedia article does not require the subject to be famous — it just requires the person to have achieved something that passes a notability criterion and has reliable source coverage about it. However, we do not necessarily always keep an article about every winner of every award that exists on the planet, but rather we take the notability of the award itself into account: for example, a Juno or a Polaris clinches the notability of a musician, while a local music scene award does not; an Oscar or a Canadian Screen Award clinches the notability of an actor, while a regional dinner theatre award does not. So local Rotary festivals are definitely not notability clinchers, for starters — and even the awards that do sound more potentially notable, the Canadian Fingerstyle Guitar Competition and the International Fingerstyle Guitar Competition, do not have Wikipedia articles at all for me to judge whether they're notable enough to clinch NMUSIC notability for their winners or not. So I'm inclined to defer to the subject's stated wishes here, because nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to require a Wikipedia article about him — and if the nominator is correct that his own friend created it (which is definitely supported by the fact that the original creator was an WP:SPA with no history of ever editing any other Wikipedia article but this), then the creator still had a conflict of interest by virtue of creating a Wikipedia article about someone he knew personally. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would also note that this discussion was formatted improperly, and has been flying under the radar since March 25 because it was never transcluded into any AFD deletion sorting logs at all. I've corrected the formatting, and it was only just now daylogged for the first time. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if someone does not want an article on themself in Wikipedia we should respect that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that he has requested it; someone claiming to be him has nominated this article (and socked it a bit). Even if he were, there are plenty of people who probably don't want articles about themselves who clearly rise to prominence above the marginal cases permitted by BIODEL (Cass McCombs is an example of someone who specifically requested his own article be deleted), and Dobson (if it is him) is being quite modest. He is an internationally famous Canadian musician who has toured Europe and the United States and received press coverage from a number of reputable publications (e.g., Guitar Player, CBC, Now Toronto, Niagara Gazette, KLCC-FM). He meets WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 4, 5, and possibly 9. Chubbles (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we assume good faith. For one thing, we don't actually have any process on here for people to prove that they are who they say they are — so unless somebody shows some hard evidence to the contrary, we accept that he is who he says he is until proven otherwise and not vice versa.
Secondly, you're clearly overstating things with "internationally famous" — yes, the guy's done some touring and gotten some regionalized press coverage, but he's not famous by any normal definition of the word. "Famous" means you can walk up to literally any rando on the street, ask if they've heard of the subject before, and already know that the answer will be yes before the rando even opens their mouth to respond — Beyoncé, Sia, Adele, Ariana Grande, Drake, Justin Bieber, George Clooney, Bruno Mars, Madonna — and does not automatically encompass every single person who's gotten their name into a couple of newspapers.
Thirdly, yes, it's true that some media coverage exists and has been shown, but the context of what he's getting coverage for is not so "inherently" notable that we require an article about him. He's obviously a working musician, and he obviously isn't flying completely under the radar, but he isn't so very Beyoncé-level famous or so very widely covered by a genuinely broad spectrum of national media that Wikipedia keeping an article about him would be mandatory. NMUSIC #9, for example, is not automatically passed by every single music competition that exists — it is passed by music competitions that regularly get reliable source coverage about the competition, and not by music competitions that don't, so the key to getting somebody over NMUSIC #9 is to show that the competition itself passes a notability criterion. But that hasn't been shown here, because none of the music competitions involved here have Wikipedia articles at all, and his placement in them is referenced to their own self-published content about themselves rather than to reliable source coverage about the competitions — so none of those competitions represent an automatic pass of NMUSIC #9 just because their names are present in the article. A competition has to pass our notability standards as a competition before it's notable enough to confer notability on its winners and finalists, and every music competition on earth does not automatically do that just because it has its own self-published website to verify that it exists. And NMUSIC #5 is not automatically passed by the existence of albums, either: it requires the albums to be released on either a major label or an important indie label on the order of Merge or Arts & Crafts or Sub Pop, and is not automatically passed by minor specialty label or self-released albums.
So unless you can find hard proof that the nominator is lying about his identity, none of this is so very highly meganotable that we need an article about him even if he doesn't want one. Yes, Beyoncé would fail to get an article about her deleted if she tried that — but this guy is nowhere near that level of fame. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why so much of the discussion revolves around his awards - he is not notable for this alone (though since multiple independent media sources spend time covering these, I'd say that gives notability for the awards credence). I also don't know why there's such a focus on the requirement of a mandatory article - the language makes no sense. All I'm saying is that he clears, by a fair margin, the requirements of notability such that we should want to cover him - for having somewhere north of half a dozen reputable third-party sources about him, some in international media; for having several releases on a label noteworthy according to WP:MUSIC's threshold; and for having received media attention for international tours (leaving aside the media attention for the festival wins and the media attention for having a viral YouTube hit, to the tune of 18 million views according to those media sources). Chubbles (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there aren't "multiple independent media sources spending time covering" the awards — those are referenced, right across the board, to primary sources, not anything resembling media. Secondly, NMUSIC #5 does not confer an automatic freebie on everybody who's released music on just any record label that has a Wikipedia article — NMUSIC #5 is passed only by major labels and an elite tier of highly notable indie labels, and does not just automatically extend to every indie label that exists at all. And thirdly, you're the one who said that his notability claim is so tremendously important that we should override his right as a low-profile figure to request WP:BIODEL — it's precisely the point of my argument to point out that he's not so highly visible or internationally famous that BIODEL would be out of the question here: none of this is so very meganotable as to override his personal privacy rights at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is a misinterpretation of the sources; his wins are mentioned several times by the reliable sources (not just the ones the wins are currently footnoted to - e.g., the Guitar Player and CBC sources both mention them, too). The second point is goalpost-moving of WP:MUSIC; it does not and has never been restricted to an elite tier, and the label Dobson was signed to was not a totally insignificant indie. Lastly, I think his personal privacy rights aren't determinative when he sought fame, gained it (again, internationally), and then later came to regret it; he is a public figure, and public figures who meet the threshold of notability should be included here, just as Cass McCombs was (he's the only example I have, but I can't imagine he's the only one). Chubbles (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not misinterpreting the sources. The test for whether an award or competition is notable enough to get its winners over the award or competition criteria in NMUSIC is not determined by whether you can find mentions of the award in sources about individual musicians — it is determined by whether the award gets coverage about the award. This is, for example, why the Canadian Screen Awards are a notability-clincher in and of themselves for an actor or actress, while the ACTRA Awards are not: the Canadian Screen Awards get reported as news in and of themselves, while the ACTRAs do not. The question of whether a music award or competition gets its winners or finalists over NMUSIC #8 or #9 works the same way: an award or competition gets competitors over those criteria if the award or competition it itself the subject of regular media coverage about the award or competition in its own right, and does not get competitors over those criteria if it cannot show such coverage. The competition has to be sourceably notable as a competition before it's notable enough to confer an NMUSIC pass on its winners or finalists.
Secondly, I am not moving any goalposts: NMUSIC has always restricted notability per #5 to an elite tier of indie labels rather than extending it to just every indie label that exists at all. It even explicitly says, as written, that it is restricted to important indie labels and not just every indie label that exists.
Thirdly, you're still using a weird, non-standard definition of the word "fame": again, "famous" is "you can walk up to any rando in any shopping mall and know that they've already heard of the person you're talking about", not "anybody who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper for any reason". There are, in fact, lots of contexts where Wikipedia does not automatically keep an article just because some media coverage can be found: we do not keep articles about most city councillors or school board trustees, even though every city councillor and every school board trustee always has some local coverage. We do not keep WP:BLP1E articles about people who get a momentary blip of media coverage for a viral video or a controversial comment, but then never get sustained coverage again after that blip fades. We do not keep articles about people who have a couple of pieces of human interest coverage in a context that doesn't clear an SNG; we do not keep articles about people who've gotten into a newspaper real estate section for having unique taste in furniture; we do not keep an article about every local restaurant just because its existence is verified by the local media; and on and so forth.
GNG does not just automatically mandate the creation or retention of an article about every topic that surpasses a certain arbitrary number of media hits, but rather it does also take into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for — and winning an obscure music competition that gets no coverage about the competition itself, paired with a few stray examples of local concert dates that can be sourced to local media with no evidence of nationalized coverage at all, is not a compellingly hypernotable context that necessitates the retention of an article or fulfills any rational definition of "fame". And by the way, those CBC hits are CBC's local news bureau in one city, not the national news division, so they don't represent nationalized coverage either.
And finally, the touring criterion in NMUSIC is not passed just because you can find one source that lists the tour calendar either: it is passed if and when you can source every individual concert in that list to a review of that specific concert itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think we're bludgeoning the process here with all these brickwalls, and the rhetoric in this last post is rather dramatically distorting my position, so I'm going to leave things here, as I think I've laid out the case in favor fairly compellingly (and done quite a bit of sourcing of the article, to boot). Chubbles (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", with 4 albums released through CandyRat Records. (I disagree that this criterion means "an elite tier of indie labels"; what it actually says is "i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". CandyRat Records meets those criteria.) Dobson may meet other notability criteria too, but one is enough. Whether or not the AfD nomination is from the subject, I don't see how someone who has been competing for over 20 years, has released 14 albums and toured 15 countries can credibly claim to be "a private person". RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CandyRat is actually not properly sourced as notable at all, but rather its article is relying entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other people with literally zero evidence of any reliable source coverage about CandyRat. The notability of a record label, for the purposes of both whether it qualifies for an article at all and whether it's notable enough to get its artists over NMUSIC #5 or not, is not determined by the ability to provide technical verification that it exists — every record label in musical history is always technically verifiable as having existed, so there would never be any such thing as a non-notable record label anymore if verification of existence was all it took. A record label's notability, rather, is determined by the extent to which the label is or is not the subject of reliable source coverage about the label itself as a company, and CandyRat is showing exactly no evidence of actually clearing that bar at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. With all due respect, we can't be sure the op is Mr. Dobson - or someone else. And of course we don't delete articles upon requests (what a can of warms this would be...). Having reviewed the sources, I find Bearcat's arguments convincing - the sources are pretty local/niche, so are the awards, and the subject seems to fail WP:NMUSIC unless we stretch it a lot. As for Rebecca's argument, well, I am not convinced that "CandyRat Records" meets the vague criteria of being a " more important indie labels". Such vague statements are the reason we are drowning in sport spam bios, since sport fans use their equivalents to argue that, errr, cyclist x competed in competition y, competition y is "an important competition" because they think so, so the bio stays. Ugh. No. Unless you can prove to me with a reliable source (academic book, etc.) that a reliable scholar or expert described this indie label as important, nope, it is NOT. Bottom line is - not every musician is notable, nor should be, and this is a reminder of that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC #5 says more than just "one of the more important indie labels"; it goes on to define what that means. It seems that you are suggesting a revision of the definition, so that rather than saying "i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable", it says "a reliable scholar or expert described this indie label in a reliable source (academic book, etc.) as important". But that is not the current policy, so basing a delete argument on it is not in line with current policy. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wp:BIODEL He seems on the notability level where BioDel applies. If it really is Ewan Dobson (and someone can verify that) it should be an obvious delete. If on the other hand it isn't Ewan Dobson then soft keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the BIODEL folks - how much more coverage would we need to find to keep the page over the BIODEL claim? (I'm guessing I'm asking for a version of the WP:HEY standard here). I mean, we've already got multiple CBC articles, Now Toronto, several other major newspapers (some US-based), and even a German album review. (and that's just for a claim on bullet 1, leaving aside the others I've already noted Dobson meets.) Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need him to be famous enough that he can't honestly be described as "low-profile". Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 2 May 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 Revert to disambiguation page. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still photography[edit]

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

This page is redundant with Photography and offers no useful additional information, so should be deleted per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Qono (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qono (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changed to Disambiguate), though I chucked around the idea of a redirect, yet couldn't quite determine if it should be towards Unit still photographer which links from the article, or perhaps Film still as that is also a theme, yet essentially as the nominator mentions, a still photo is simply just a Photograph. It could redirect there, but then I suspect noone searching for information on a photograph would look at this article name initially. The page views are not that low, though I suspect from looking at a few linked articles that those links may be better placed elsewhere. This was a DAB for a period of time though I can't see a reason to retain. Most search engine hits reference Still life photography, which is an entirely different matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per Spinningspark, I noted in my previous comment this was previously a DAB, and it seems that there is not consenus to keep the current article state, or to redirect anywhere, but restoring the DAB page I believe would suit all scenerios. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Photography, of which it is a long-established and once widely-used synonym. I'm astonished to hear talk of deletion here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a redirect is essentially deleting though, as you're still not retaining any of the content or the article itself (not that there is anything worth keeping). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I wasn't clear in my nomination. By "delete", I meant blank-and-redirect to Photography. Qono (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qono: If you meant a redirect, then you could just do it and withdraw the AfD. As I noted, I thought also about suggesting a redirect but I thought at this time it would be quite pointless, but you could have done that yourself? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your bolded redirect. The convention at AfD is to take your nomination statement as a delete recommendation unless you say otherwise. If you then put a bolded recommendation in the discussion as well, it appears you have !voted twice. If you feel the need for a bolded recommendation, you should do it in your nomination statement. SpinningSpark 17:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be a disambiguation page. A user who searches for "Still photography" may be thinking of either still life photography or unit still photography, which redirects to unit still photographer. It is rather unlikely that they simply meant to look for photography, so that's not a good target. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Still photography is in fact a term one encounters with frequency in the art and art history worlds of lens-based image-making. It is not the same as still-life photography, and is distinct from other lens-based processes such as video and filmmaking. It also seems to be more aligned with "old skool" darkroom photo rather than digital photo (or pinhole photography), but that is just a peculiarity of vernacular usage. IMO the article in question should be merged with photography, perhaps in a section that defines various terms. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to being a disambiguation page, which is how it was originally created. Any of the three links on the page are potentially what a reader may have been looking for: photography, the product of a unit still photographer, or still life photography. SpinningSpark 22:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle, Chiswick Chap, Vexations, and Netherzone: I have reverted the nom's self-close. Pinging in case the close caused anyone to unwatch the page. SpinningSpark 09:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I self-closed after hearing here that an AfD was inappropriate for a redirect and that I should simply boldly apply the redirect, which there seemed to be a rough consensus for here. I'm still not clear if AfD's are generally the right way to get consensus for a redirect instead of a true deletion, but I'm happy to have the discussion here lead the way. Qono (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qono: Don't worry about it - perhaps my suggestion should have been more around the idea of withdrawing prior to any meaningful responses, rather than after a varied amount of responses. Regardless, it's reasonable that varied suggestions should be considered towards the final decision and letting the AfD run the course allows for a consensus to be reached which may differ from your original view. I don't think there would have been any grumbles from a redirect instead of the AfD, but at least this way others can offer views. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to being a disambiguation page; this revision looks good. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate because it is another name for Photography; is similar to Unit still photographer; and possibly but less likely is confused with Still life photography. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Photography. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:45, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

Umm.......What's this exactly? We use templates for these stuff; not main-space articles. ∯WBG^converse 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another version of portal spam. A big collection of links without the usefulness of articeltext around them for context. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already coved under Jammu and Kashmir. We do not need a synopsis of the main article or as we say here in the United States a CliffsNotes version to summarize. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't get the point of most outlines, it's just the article with everything but the blue links stripped out with no additional use to the reader. This is a specific enough topic that a separate outline is unnecessary, which should generally be for larger, more abstract topics. From the same portalspammer. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another useless pile of junk created by everyone's favourite topic-banned spammer The Transhumanist. Reywas92 is correct - outlines are just glorified linkfarms that nobody uses. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As a top-level admininstrative (and cultural) division of a large country, this is not too specific to not have an outline on. Each of the other 28 Indian states have outlines, so do each of the 51 US states, for that matter. Deleting just this one would be quite odd and breaks the consistency of things.

I am not a fan of The Transhumanist's mass creations, but this is clearly a well-done hand-curated outline, and indeed provides a good bird's eye of the subject as outlines are supposed to do. I don't see any valid argument here for deletion other than "I don't like outlines" or "this is created by that portal spammer". If you don't think states should have outlines, start an RFC or a mass AFD on the issue, one-off deletion of a single one helps no one. SD0001 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that virtually all of the Indian state outlines were created or mostly written by him, so the fact they all exist is hardly an excuse to keep this one when none are really that notable or useful. I can hardly cite Wikipedia:Outlines being entirely written him too...looking at the archives there's a lot of concern about both outlines and TTH's single-handed creation of the system. I'm sure you know perfectly well that mass AFDs tend to be rejected over nuance of individual articles so a test case tends to be good place to start. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omg he wrote literally all of the US state outlines too. There's no reason for the links on these pages not to simply be on the main article already, these just strip them of context. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"write" is a generous word to use here for a link farm. There are over 700 more outline drafts he has started and continues to pick away at. I watch his talkpage and will support any deletion of any useless outline anyone nominates for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that generous of a word when you consider the fact that creating an outline requires carefully listing links under meaningful section headers, certainly more difficult work than simply nominating pages for deletion, in which you specialise. SD0001 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of page curation. I might be one of the most knowledgable editors in this vital area of maintenance. For example User:Legacypac/CSD_log shows some of my work. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the very least procedurally, though I'm happy with keeping it on normal grounds. Encyclopedias do typically tend to have outlines or indexes, and this serves its purpose in that regard. I would suggest bringing this to the community's attention at a wider level and go from there, but nominating one for deletion would just create an inconsistency. SportingFlyer T·C 04:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there was a big pushback on the mass creation of outlines a few years ago. Being forced to stop outlines was what got TTH into portals. The cleanup was never completed but people keep chipping away at it as the come across these pages. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you come up with this nonsense? I was never forced to stop working on outlines. I switched over to portals because you and others were trying to delete them all. — The Transhumanist 03:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think that there's a reason for people trying to stop you from adding to the bloat? puggo (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – we should have an outline on each major geographical region, as Wikipedia's regional coverage is extensive. The outline will grow as Wikipedia's coverage of this subject grows. — The Transhumanist 03:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bogus deletion "rationale" (just a variant of WP:IDONTKNOWIT). This is a perfectly normal WP:OUTLINE article, a navigational list page that is very useful (far easier to use that our category system, which is primarily of service to editors not readers). And, no, we could not put all this in a navbox template. They are never, ever this long, and they have tight inclusion criteria for what my be in them. PS: The opposers using this and other such AfDs and MfDs to engage in ad hominem, aspersion-casting nastiness just because of who the page-creator was are just laying the groundwork for their own ArbCom examination. It's getting really, really tedious to run into this kind of childish, uncivil hostility every time I look at an XfD process. It's unseemly, non-collegial, un-wiki, and not permissible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to a discussion of outlines in general. I don't care much for outlines (or portals for that matter) and wouldn't miss them if they went, nor am I a big fan of TTH's mass creations. Having said that, I think this is not the place to discuss outlines as a whole. Furthermore, the arguments for deletion seem to be a bit WP:PUNISH-y and ad hominem IMO, and this is actually not too terribly bad of an outline, and J&K is not too obscure for an outline. It's not the greatest, but there are certainly worse outlines and portals. –John M Wolfson (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a discussion of outlines in general, per John M Wolfson. I think that there is a useful discussion to be had about whether outlines are worth keeping, but that should be discussed as a matter of general principle in relation to all outlines, rather than by picking off individual, unexceptional example.

Note that my personal view is current that:

Outlines are probably of at best marginal utility, and I lean towards deleting the lot, but want to hear the broad arguments on both sides
@The Transhumanist appears to have created many hundreds of these outlines over many years. There is clearly a long-term pattern of disruptiveness which includes: mass-creating meta-content; doing so without either first establishing a clear consensus in favour of this type of page, or even seeking consensus when challenged; doing nothing to assist in the cleanup; unilaterally rewriting guidelines to suit his own preferences. It seems to me that the current short-term topic ban on TTH mass-creating portals is woefully inadequate. We need much wider and more long-term restraint on this editor's ability to wreak havoc.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The outline is redundant as the article is already succinct and fairly divvied. This is simply a part of TTH's edit farming. puggo (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main article has an infobox and table of contents, both of which provide convenient access to information. This seperate article is confusing and unnecessary.--Pontificalibus 17:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument would apply to every outline we have (or at least to all valid outlines). Outlines are created for significant topics, and the main articles for these topics would always have an infobox and toc. SD0001 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if someone nominates the others I will use the same argument. The outlines I have seen seem to be duplications of existing content and don’t improve access to information, but rather cause confusion by the existence of a separate article with a tendency to have a particular editorial slant on what is considered important.--Pontificalibus 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SD0001. Also, Outline of Jammu and Kashmir is a tad bit more controversial than other Indian states due to two other countries (China and Pakistan) administering regions that India has claimed is entirely hers. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outlines like this one are unencyclopedic. This merely reproduces content in the main article. Arguing that other outlines exist is pure WP:WAX. FOARP (talk) 21:06, 26 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. My personal sympathy lies with those !voting "delete", but even after two relists, no consensus seems to be forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 MTV Movie & TV Awards[edit]

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

Copy and paste move from AfC---the article is totally unreferenced. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments If it's scheduled to take place, as the article claims, then surely there's a source for that? And can a WP:HISTMERGE be done? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Page has been updated with relevant information, officially released by MTV via all its social media platforms.^[1]^[2] Should be reviewed for discussion closure, article should be in compliance. User:Juwan1203 (My talk page) (My edits) 03:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pedersen, Erik (2019-04-23). "MTV Movie & TV Awards Has Its Host – Just Say Shazam!". Deadline. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
^ Bell, Crystal (2019-04-23). "Zachary Levi Is Hosting The 2019 MTV Movie & TV Awards". MTV. Retrieved 2019-04-23.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further information, such as nominations, honorees, presenters, etc. will be disclosed by MTV in the following weeks, article should be updated with references when above are officially released. User:Juwan1203 (My talk page) (My edits) 08:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge. No indication those awards/events are notable on yearly basic. Likely all of the articles in this series should be merged to the parent article. This is of course a widespread problem, many yearly award pages are not notable. Ditto for yearly sport events. But who wants to touch that can of worms? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I see Piotrus's point about the lack of notability of each yearly event, the MTV awards are significant as far as awards shows go. Now that the article has been updated with information about the award show itself, it should be kept. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unsourced garbage/wild mass nom guessing/awards fans detritus has been hauled out, and it's now sourced as well as it can be for now. Nate • (chatter) 03:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 22:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lubbad85: How is that WP:TOOSOON when it's only about two months from the awards being presented. Matt294069 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zero article. There is the promise of something, and that is not how Wikipedia works. Literally nothing. The promise of something is not WP:GNG I will vote to keep after there is a show. Matt294069 Lubbad85 (☎) 03:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Do we expect MTV to suddenly self-destruct and go off the air permanently in the interim 48 days, the Barker Hangar to collapse into a heap, Zachary Levi to have something tragic happen to him, or for everyone to refuse their honors, thus meaning there will be no show? It's going to be held, there's no question about it. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:TOOSOON there is no article until it happens . Making an article early. WP:NORUSH what is happeniong? Just trying to be first? I did not even vote, I made a comment. But now I will vote. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lubbad85: Let me make a few things clear, if you were unaware:

I have been creating/editing these pages for 7 years, and this is normal procedure. As MTV does not release information for these events all at once, presumably advert/marketing strategy (i.e. presenters, performers, etc.), we can only update the page with official information provided by them, as they wish to release it on their schedule.
Secondly, Google sources the information from these pages to fill knowledge panels for its search queries (see screenshots or Google each year of MTV Movie/Movie&TV Awards to see for yourself). So, creating the page “early” ensures people who search for the show are not misinformed, including other major news outlets, who also source Google’s results.
The only reason we are even having this discussion is that an inexperienced editor, with these articles, created this page with inaccurate information and references. Although, in my opinion from what I saw, I don’t believe this user maliciously created the page (i.e. vandalism); the article was flagged, due to the information he or she provided at the time. This threat of deletion happens every year.

Frankly, I am over this sh*t. Does it really make sense to delete a page, only to recreate it in 2 months? If you want to create this page from scratch, including nominees, winners, send Google info plus handle vandalism of all of it from unregistered users (i.e. ID’d by IP) on June 17th, be my guest. And yes, we are just trying to get a headstart.

I plan on closing this discussion tomorrow (in accordance with deletion policy - 7 days after relisting), unless anyone has anything to add to the discussion.

P.S. Sh*t on someone else’s parade and don’t be spiteful. User:Juwan1203 (My talk page) (My edits) 10:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot (1173).png | File:Screenshot (1174).png

Delete WP:TOOSOON there is no article until it happens Lubbad85 (☎) 03:07, 2 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youceff Kabal (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the guidelines in WP:NMUSIC. LK (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central claim to delete the page is invalid. The article meets criteria 1. and 11. for musicians and ensembles.
Criteria 1: Several non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself are listed in the sources for the article, including:

2 Phoenix New Times articles (not counting print)
Articles from blogs listed on Hype Machine (umstrum.com)

There are also dozens of other non-trivial, published works that are not yet listed in the sources for the article such as mentions on Owsla blog NestHQ, and Bandcamp Weekly
Criteria 11: the song "Nowadays" was played on rotation by DJ and music journalist Mary Anne Hobbs on her XFM show Music:Response
Criteria 2: Criteria is debatable as YUS was #2 on We_Are_Hunted charts in late 2012.

Also of note: Artist's Twitter account is verified, and has over 1 million streams and ~5000 monthly listeners on Spotify.

This page has been active since 2016, with changes by multiple experienced editors. There is no reason to delete it. There is an ongoing discussion to change the page name from Youceff Kabal(musician) to YUS(musician) after a change of artist name. Please elect to keep. User:Yunquekabal (User talk:Yunquekabal) 07:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk)

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 Miss World Sri Lanka#Titleholders. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpika Sandamali[edit]

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

Fails WP: ANYBIO lacks any independent reliable secondary sources. Is the winner of a national beauty pageant is still only WP:1EVENT. Insufficient notability with no significant achievements since the beauty pageant win - didn’t even rank at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can’t believe that are you are comparing a pageant based purely on a persons appearance against a sporting contest, which requires physical and mental skills. Besides in most cases, apart from the Olympics, an individual needs to have at least placed in an international competition, to be considered notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I absolutely cannot believe that you have nominated these articles for deletion when you clearly have such limited knowledge of the subject matter! Beauty pageants are *not* judged purely on appearance; there are multiples sections for talent performance, presenting a charity the contestant has been involved with, completing an interview, completing a sports event and actual modelling tasks. It's an all-round competition and the winners are celebrities in their own countries. MurielMary (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all true. We had a long lasting RfC discussion on beauty pageants, and an attempts to create a list of competitions that entering made people default notable was rejected. MurialMary's proposal is against community consensus. Beyond this her attempts to make it so only a few highly specialized people can even comment on a nomination or even make one are the types of actions that preserve walled gardens that create hundreds of articles on totally non-notable people, such as the current one we have connected with the beauty queen complex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing motives to my comments which I have not stated. I am not attempting to "make it so only a few highly specialised people can comment on a nom". It is perfectly reasonable for an editor to correct another editor's erroneous information - in this case, it appears that Dan is making judgements on deletion based on an erroneous understanding of the competition the subject entered. Perfectly reasonable for me to correct that in order to assist him/her to develop a more accurate understanding of the subject matter being dealt with. MurielMary (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty pageant contestants are not automatically notable, unlike professional athletes who have competed in recognised international sporting competitions. Your assertions that they are the same are invalid and not supported by any collaborating guidelines.Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pageant's page (if any). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:14, 26 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 Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Herft[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) however no other significant achievements. Failed to place at international level. Fails WP:NMODEL Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pageant's page (if any). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:15, 26 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 Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avanti Marianne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) however no other significant achievements. Failed to place at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders ~~Delete~~ -- Agree with proposer. I'm not seeing much WP:RS. Most of the other winners of this pageant (Miss Universe Sri Lanka) don't have Wikipedia articles either, so being the winner does not seem to be sufficient for notability. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [revised 09:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can’t believe that are you are comparing a pageant based purely on a persons appearance against a sporting contest, which requires physical and mental skills. Besides in most cases, apart from the Olympics, an individual needs to have at least placed in an international competition, to be considered notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is not at all true. We had a long lasting RfC discussion on beauty pageants, and an attempts to create a list of competitions that entering made people default notable was rejected. MurialMary's proposal is against community consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pageant's page (if any). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka, where she and other winners are mentioned. This is a non-notable beauty pageant winner who went on to having a regular career as a non-notable lawyer. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 29 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. I would love to close this as "delete", as I think that beauty pageants are incredibly sexist (yes, there are talent sessions, but what gets all the attention is the bathing suit flesh parade). However, there clearly is no consensus to keep or delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rathnayake[edit]

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

REDIRECT to Miss Universe Sri Lanka. Fails WP:GNG - the winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) however no other significant achievements. Failed to place at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka#TitleholdersDelete per proposer and my arguments here: [17][18][19]. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [revised 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Keep 1Event? Ive added another from five years later. Beauty Pageants are big in some cultures. Contract and compare with this list where the women were just "in" some US mag. [[20]] Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: What's the other event? An interview (which by itself I would believe is just WP:PRIMARY, unless that interview is mentioned in other secondary sources--is it?) I clicked on some of the women in the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month you provided, and the first two or three just point to a list. They don't have their own page. I am suggesting to do the same with a redirect to the list. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough coverage for becoming a beauty queen to show notability. Other stuff exists is a horrible argument. If you feel that articles on particular people glorified by playboy are not justified, nominate those articles for deletion. I would in general support such deletions in most cases. The fact of the matter is that from 2006-2012 Wikipedia was a wild west of creationism and we are now suffering the negative consequnces of such unreastained growth. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can’t believe that are you are comparing a pageant based purely on a persons appearance against a sporting contest, which requires physical and mental skills. Besides in most cases, apart from the Olympics, an individual needs to have at least placed in an international competition, to be considered notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I absolutely cannot believe that you have nominated these articles for deletion when you clearly have such limited knowledge of the subject matter! Beauty pageants are *not* judged purely on appearance; there are multiple sections for talent performance, presenting a charity the contestant has been involved with, completing an interview, completing a sports event and actual modelling tasks. It's an all-round competition and the winners are celebrities in their own countries. MurielMary (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all true. We had a long lasting RfC discussion on beauty pageants, and an attempts to create a list of competitions that entering made people default notable was rejected. MurialMary's proposal is against community consensus. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pageant's page (if any). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per Sourcing, per other ventures beside pageant title. WP:GNG applies here. Guidelines are here to guide us, still no one above seems to think anything but POV applies. BabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Given the arguments above she is notable for owning a travel agency and living with her boyfriend for five years before getting married - based on an uncollaborated personal interview. Clearly fails GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ANYBIO has won a major award. "Miss Sri Lanka 2013 and represented her country at the Miss Universe 2013 pageant." WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 21:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: I have to admit that is a pretty strong argument, which if valid would immediately make a good portion, if not all, of the people on the list Miss_Universe_Sri_Lanka#Titleholders notable. The problem is determining if either the title Miss Universe Sri Lanka or multiple nominations to Miss Universe is sufficient for notability. @Dan arndt: I am increasingly of the opinion that this uncertainty might warrant an RfC on these questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides its reliance on poor sources, the issue I have with most articles on beauty queens is that they say they “represented” their country in a major pageant that they don’t even make the Top 16 of. How is notability derived from that? Just standing their in a nice gown and smiling yet not advancing? It’s a no for me. Trillfendi (talk) 00:05, 30 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 13:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere Airlines[edit]

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

There is coverage about the subject, though this seems more like an elaborate hoax. May even be speedied, though there may be a debate whether the claim for significance is credible. I think it is not. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well the company exists (See ref) but it seems to only exist on paper so far so the table of destinations is just speculation. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I saw that, too. Some media has picked this up as well - plus some press releases that agreements with vendors for systems have been signed. Though as PR, this would not count to notability. Mere existence of a company is not enough. Anyone can register a company in the UK. I could file, say, "British International Jetways" (just a fantasy name) now, pay 60 pounds or thereabouts to register and I'm incorporated by Monday - maybe even later today. Existence is not notability. So far we only have the (alleged) airline's word for their activities. Reporting seems biased to their PR/activities. Realistically, running an airline takes money and experience. There are a number of blogs out there who have picked up on the subject calling them out. See [21], [22]. I let those comments speak for themselves... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - only exists on paper. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we can always reinstate it when they actually start commercial operations. :) DBaK (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment – have you seen their Twitter feed? It is very informative and appears to confirm that it is a hoax. This assumes that the URL we give is correct: that page gives us a link to this where you can find such gems as I have started a new airline with a difference. We have no planes, no plan and no clue. Give me cash for my trips to Thailand., or perhaps you would prefer I have no staff in my fantasy airline but I will bid for Monarch, EasyJet and Ryanair and rule the skies, all from my Chelmsford bedroom. People, I think this is a hoax and we are wasting our time. Delete it – we can, as I say above, always reinstate it on the day their first scheduled flight with paying passengers takes off ... DBaK (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: It is amazing that media outlets such as this give it airtime. Interesting reading... Let me just say this: bidders will normally submit elaborate, tangible bids that take an army of people weeks to prepare - in most cases through their mandated investment banks. This will usually come attached with already arranged financing in principle. Then a dataroom will be opened and an even bigger army of bankers and lawyers goes over every document before making binding bids with financing committed. The process is at this stage now. I have never ever heard of someone posting "bids" (what Atmosphere has done is rather a statement of intent) on their LinkedIn and cold-emailing random people. The source states that Atmosphere has not been shortlisted. I think it's reasonable to assume that one of TPG Capital, Etihad, Indigo Partners or National Investment and Infrastructure Fund will be successful. They should all be well funded already._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely erroneous and misleading information. This ‘company’ does not operate as an airline and is not a going concern. Stansted Airport is not commercially linked with this company. The company does not own or lease any aircraft, and ‘employed’ staff number is entirely fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.235.146 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debatable information at best. No need to be kept without proper sourcing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can see that WP:TOOSOON probably applies here, Atmosphere has made a bid for India's debt-laden Jet Airways. So, in all likelihood, more details (probably in the Indian media) will pour out shortly. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tweet is in no way, an official legal tender. There is absolutely no proof the claim or tweet has any factual basis. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I wasn't referring to the tweet, but the coverage he got in the media, specifically on Firstpost and Quartz. Firstpost and Quartz. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dream at the moment, hosted by a person of dubious background according to google images “Jason Unsworth fraud”

He has many social media accounts that are retweeted/reposted numerous times

Agree if it ever takes off then is the time to revisit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.186.2 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, etc.etc.. Not to mention that it is likely to be a fraudulent investment scam--Petebutt (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax on WP:G3 grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is little more than some sort of publicity seeking exercise. The number of employees and aircraft are demonstrably rubbish (this company has a turnover according to Companies House of next to nothing, it’s just a shell company, so doesn’t employ and pay anyone). Pure fantasy. Delete and reinstate when he actually gets an AOC. The Jet saga is pure hype, he has no money, and no one ever makes this sort of bid on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.254.134 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Speedy delete" is no longer timely. Thank you to deletion nominator and several others who sorted this out. --Doncram (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A note to the closing editor or administrator. There seem to be a lot of IPs lurking on this discussion. Please do make a note of those. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment - as I write there are about to be ~33 edits here from 15 editors, of whom 3 are editing from IP addresses. The stats are here. Can you please kindly explain how the three IPs are a lot and how their behaviour constitutes lurking? Is the lurking meant pejoratively and if so how so? Is lurking different from commenting and does it have some sinister intent? I am sure that the closer will have seen such situations before and will know how to deal with it but I honestly do not understand what the point is that you wish to make here: are you suggesting some malpractice? What effect would you like the closer's making a note to have? I'd be really grateful for some clarification. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. I am suggesting some malicious intent from IPs and users who haven't edited much before but land up on AfDs. This isn't an unusual thing and in the past many (including me) have made such a note. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I see what you are saying, though I don't agree with you. I've just spent a few minutes skimming through the pprune thread cited above, and looking at related materials. None of this did anything to increase my faith in the article or to decrease my faith in the edits from the three IPs. But it will be interesting to see how this pans out. Thanks again for replying; with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my nomination and the above comments. I feel it may be good to raise a few points for consideration. As with many startups or early stage companies, there's a view to be taken if the company, the founder or both are notable. Person and company of course are subject to general guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST, WP:NTEMP and specific guidelines such as WP:NCORP for companies and WP:BASIC for people. The nomination is for the article about the company. When looking at the company separately from the individual (Mr. Unsworth), there is nothing from independent sources that substantiates any of the claims in the article. Critically, when talking about Atmosphere, media states they refer back to the company's website and claims they make in their social media feeds. In essence, none of the sources that talk about Atmosphere do so using independent contents. In addition, the vast majority of sources leads with "A British Entrepreneur...". Atmosphere is mentioned in passing as one of his interests, but the media focus seems to be on the person making the offer. This, is addition to the sheer lack of substantiation of any claims is a clear fail for Atmosphere. IMO, an article about Unsworth - which is yet to be written - would actually have more merit than an article about the non-operational airline that only exists on paper. Let me be clear, I am not proposing that such an article be written and I am equally sceptical it will pass a review. However, any such hypothetical article about Unsworth will need to pass notability for a person. Here I would particularly raise WP:BIO1E as the only coverage is in relation to his "bid" for Jet Airways at a time where the Jet Airways insolvency receives much attention. WP:TOOSOON has been cited and WP:NTEMP is probably also relevant. Related to this, the article and video published by CNBC's Indian franchise makes important reading. [23]. In a nutshell, they make it very clear that pretty much all media coverage is not independently verified and based just on the person's claims. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've done a little research on this, as a professional in the airline industry. The four 777 aircraft he refers to are going for scrap, not to him (the current owners have confirmed this). He does not own a B787 of any variety (according to Boeing, who would know). As for 1,000 employees, this too is rubbish; his accounts show no turnover, and the few people who seem to be involved are simply his immediate family, in the main. I'd agree with others - if he achieves a licence to be an airline (right now he is just a limited company, and in the UK I could easily start SARASTRO'S FLIGHTS TO MARS LTD, but that doesn't mean I have a spaceship), then let them restart a page. In the meantime, I think there are very real concerns about the probity of this.
Comment: Ready to close by any editor not involved, whether administrator or not. Why is this still open. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 2 May 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 13:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jivan Mizuri[edit]

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

The article is sourced, however I question the reliability and independence of the sources. They appear exaggerated and promotional, some copying the wording from the individual's own website. Apparently promo articles. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Delete Nah, just can't be bothered after reading this. It's a blatant delete, no noteworthiness, and more than likely written by himself, which in some cases I have no problem with, however, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no noteworthiness,and WP:NEXIST. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:37, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magsaysay Boulevard station[edit]

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but does not meet WP:GNG or WP:STATION currently. Could be redirected to the line, but editor insists on creating article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The station merits an article similar to how other previously existing station articles from Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 4, Metro Manila Subway Line 9, Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 7, etc. is. The station details, elevation, platform structure, and nearby locale is even indicated in the source by METI. Therefore topic merits its own article. I shall revert redirects for the mean time as discussions on similar articles are on-going. Korean Rail Fan 15:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor is the article creator. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as this doesn't actually exist yet and it has been known for proposed stations to be delayed or never happen at all. Even if/when it is constructed, it shouldn't be an automatic article, though seldom are articles of actual railway stations deleted. I don't see the harm in waiting and then creating an article once it's established. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If applying such argument, many other existing station articles prior to the creation of this such as Taytay station, NAIA Terminal 3 station, Salitran station, Pier 4 station, etc as well as other country station article stubs shall also be deleted as these are just planned stations. Yet these have their own article and if delete prevails, these articles too need to be deleted as their are "Just plans" for now. So given that these haven't been officially cancelled and using those examples (which has been reviewed and accepted already despite some lacking sources and again having that same "planned" status), these stations merit a keep. Korean Rail Fan 17:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create an AfD for those other stations. I am submitting an opinion on the AfD in question. FWIW, I don't think any station "planned" should have an article until or near completion, unless it's a significant interchange of some sort with alot of news coverage, planning information etc. I happen to accept the rationale set out by the nominator of this AfD - sorry if you disagree with that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTPAPER. These articles are verifiable and passes WP:GNG being parts of multi-billion public infrastrucure projects. Their proposed locations and other specifications are definitely noteworthy to the riding public, and merit their own separate articles more than any Category:Proposed skyscrapers that benefit only their owners or developers IMO.--RioHondo (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually notability is not inherited, and being part of a project which is notable does not make these stations notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly funded infrastructure and transportation projects of this size, even proposals for such and even stubs for such, are inherently and "generally notable" as explained in WP:PUBTRAN and WP:RAILSTATION. Anything for the good of the public should be inherently notable, as opposed to a lot of the private moneymaking proposal articles out there, proposed hotels, proposed condominiums, you get my drift.--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so based on what the "keepers" above are stating, some/most of the "stations" on the Light rail in Canberra will need their own wikiarticles (personally i wouldnt mind just a sentence or two on the relevant suburb articles, with a possible expansion of the LRC article), and Newcastle Light Rail (oh look! the stations are incorporated in the NLR article, what are wikiozeditors thinking:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF?--RioHondo (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this no doubt is needed and eventually will be built, but not under the chaos of this incumbent regime, currently at a war of words with the Roman Catholic Church and the earthquakes this week possibly eating up funds. If we must, please merge back to Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 4. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not how the project works especially that it is a Public-Private Partnership which does not concern itself of any natural calamity that does not affect its right of way. The project will be mostly private funded with minimal government participation which cannot be reallocated to emergency funds as this is appropriated already in an annual budget stipulated under a law called "General Appropriations Act of 20xx" annually. Also the political climate now is more conducive for big-ticket infrastructure projects with the Build-Build-Build program which aims to accelerate infrastructure spending through government funds, loans, and PPPs.So these arguments of natural calamity and possible reappropriation of funding is invalid. Korean Rail Fan 03:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment It's a chaotic political scene but is confined to the PR war and media. Actually construction has accelererated to its highest speed in recent decades with the Dutertenomics. 3-4 rail projects are now seeing completion within the presidents term including the Manila Subway and MRT7. It has nothing to do with whatever alarmist columns you read in the MSM. Especially not the Catholic church which isnt involved in either the construction or in government. Leave the politics out of these articles pls. :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:38, 24 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) 05:56, 26 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 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subzone[edit]

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

An element of a long-defunct ad campaign for Subway (restaurant). There are no sources in the article, and after doing some extensive searches, I can't find a single mention of its existence. The fact that I have been unable to find a single reliable source discussing it makes it a pretty clear case of not passing the WP:GNG Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 19 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) 05:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article featuring WP:OR speculation, such as "This feature of the website has been eliminated bringing up the question whether the Subzone is still part of the campaign.". Companies have ad campaigns but there is no evidence that this one ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above editors. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nomination and above as well.Spyder212 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Super non-notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:16, 28 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 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Control (upcoming film)[edit]

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

The film has been postponed indefinitely due to a sex scandal with one of the main cast. Article contains little of substance and I can find no significant coverage elsewhere. Fails WP:NOTFILM. PC78 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (SOFT) - per nom. If it was a more feasible search term then it would make sense to redirect, but it seems a bit odd to do so. Certainly no particular reason to retain the article per standard NOTFILM explanation - the cancellation wasn't to do with the film itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 25 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) 05:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NFF. Spyder212 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTFILM. -MA Javadi (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 02:52, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise marketing management[edit]

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

Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accommodate. Article has no references which leads to WP:POV, WP:NOTESSAY and other concerns though that is not to say the sourcing is not fixable. Previously nominated in a bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management the other article was found to have a serious copy violation resulting in a CSD G12 and with this article also being mistakenly deleted in good faith got CSD G12 before being restored with suggestion to represent at AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Unfortunately Talk:Enterprise marketing management has not been restored at this time, hopefully this will be done soon. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC) .. now restored.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added three sources, including two books devoted to EMM. The subject is looking notable so far. From what I have read, it would seem reasonable to fold in verifiable information on the related MRM and MOM topics into this article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:20, 4 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) 06:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The related article nomination Marketing operations management with which this was previously bundled at AfD has now returned to AfD following DRV. Attempting to re-bundle at this stage may be undesirable however I would expect arguments to be synchronous. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I added to the article. The topic looks notable and with two books devoted to the topic, a reasonable article can be written on this topic. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the same topic as Marketing., at least ifit means what the article says. Textbooks use buzzwords. The English language one relied on here is actually devoted to one particular theory of management, and if it is notable, would need a more appropriate name than the one chose by the publisher's editorial staff--it is furthermore considerably more specific than the totally vague article here, . The German one seems to just use it as a synonym, based on the publisher's description. . If the term were to have any distinctive meaning , it is not what is given in the article, --Enterprise as a prefix, usually means appropriate for a very large company ,as in Enterprise software. But this is no different from any other kind of marketing. WP is an encyclopedia, and we write articles on concepts, not jargon. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 18 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) 05:52, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable under our improved guidelines for companies and organisations. It gets a few passing mentions on Gbooks and Gnews, nothing resembling in-depth coverage. There may be plenty of that in a language which I regret I cannot read.

NB: the article was created by nuisance/hoax editor Alec Smithson, now globally locked. The page is short because in 2016 I removed as unreliable all the unsourced content he had added; some or even all of it may have been correct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 3 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) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as I mentioned on the talk page, the organisation may have an important role in antique certification. Seems to be the Hong Kong equivalent of the British Antique Dealers' Association. Their certificates of authenticity are frequently cited on auction items. I think the best thing to do with this is to merge into another article, but none of List of antique dealers' associations, List of art dealers' associations, or Antique dealers' association seem to exist. SpinningSpark 17:44, 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) 14:51, 18 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) 05:51, 26 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. Given the low participation, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNIDOC[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. Originally nominated for PROD with the justification Lone source is to an informational page for a UN-sponsored EDI standard...which the subject is based on. No mention of the subject in any reliable source that I could find, although there's a surprising amount of other things named UNIDOC. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE, dePROD by Thomasakeri who said they would provide reliable sources. However, the two additional sources appear to both be directly connected to the subject ([24], [25]) and the last one doesn't even mention the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, some evidence has been added for the widespread use of UNIDOC in Germany: 3 ERP systems with references. Moreover, the UNIDOC article was even accepted in the strict de-wikipedia (Thomasakeri, a rather new user). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasakeri (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources provided appear to be primary sources that barely say anything about UNIDOC, I still have yet to see any significant coverage in an independent reliable source. It's possible that it could qualify for notability via some guideline or another about code standards, but I am unaware of any such guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand (may be ... sorry, but I am rather new in the Wikipedia community) and added the link to the official xsd file. May be, anything more is missig? If so, please help me again to complete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasakeri (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasakeri, well, now that's just a primary source document (if even, it's literally part of the subject's code). What I would like to see is secondary coverage in reliable sources, such as a reliable tech magazine writing about the implications of this EDI standard, or an academic paper published in a peer review journal that discusses the subject at length (and is not written by the people who originally developed it). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 9 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) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jo-Jo. I've just added a note about the meaning of UNIDOC in Germany and a source about this. In addition, the German Wikipedia, despite very strict rules there, has accepted my UNIDOC article. Maybe that's an indication of relevance for you, too. Thomasakeri (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to all: Is everything o.k. now with "my little article project"? Will the status "considered for deletion" end tomorrow and the article remain? As a newcomer I would be very happy for a short explanation of the further process (instead of losing my work without any comment). Thanks for understanding. Thomasakeri (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasakeri, The article is still being considered for deletion, and will continue to be until this discussion is closed by an uninvolved administrator. Right now, you and I are the only people that have actually discussed the article's relative merits––generally, such discussions continue until multiple editors have weighed in. I would suggest just waiting until more people have participated. If no one else participates after a certain amount of time, the discussion will be closed as "no consensus", which essentially means that we act as if it had never been nominated in the first place. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rosguill, for this clear explanation of the process! Thomasakeri (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 18 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) 05:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During the last weeks, the number of sources (references) has risen to nine. At least six of them are independent. Thomasakeri (talk) 10:56, 2 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robine van der Meer[edit]

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

Not even the Dutch article has sources that could save this. No notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Clearly not enough sourcing (much less quality sourcing) to establish notability. Waggie (talk) 19:46, 3 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) 06:02, 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) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Van der Meer passes WP:ENT by criterium #1 and the WP:GNG. Problem isn't sources but bad references. A warning should have sufficed. gidonb (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently this isn’t true. Trillfendi (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have evidence that she is not notable??? Bring it on! gidonb (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance does not = notability. 2 of the “sources” are dead and the other one is IMDb which you very well know is not a reliable source. What does that tell you about this “article”? Trillfendi (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, what you say tells absolutely nothing about the subject or its sources. It does tell that your nomination hangs on broken links in references (and otherwise weak references) while the topic of the nomination passes the professional standard. Please check WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question. When you say "Appearance does not = notability", do you mean to say that you disagree with our notability guideline or just that two major roles are needed by WP:ENT #1? She does have these. gidonb (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is obviously not about stupid shit like broken links, like I already said notability is not there and it hasn’t been proven. Not even significant coverage. What do you get when you search her name—at most relationship gossip from 3 years ago from websites like “whosdatedwho.com”. This “article” is a random smattering of sentences. None of the vague^[vague] work she has done shows notability and appearing on an unknown tv show 11 years ago with no verification to back up doesn’t hold up an article. It’s very clear that “Model in 1 day” is not on calibre with an actual modeling show like Holland's Next Top Model. Trillfendi (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been estaiblished as Van der Meer passes the relevant professional standard, WP:ENT. The fact that there are longer running and more recent shows (we have huge WP:RECENTISM problems in showbiz and elsewhere) than Model in 1 dag, does not take anything away from this show's importance. It says something positive about Holland's Next Top Model that is irrelevant to Van der Meer's notability. There is no such thing as negative proof of the WP:GNG by pointing at random gossip, unless that source is already part of the positive proof. Here the relevant standard is clear. The points you raise (broken links, an irrelevant reference, some gossip, and another show) are distractions. gidonb (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the imdb reference (moved it to external links) and will review the other references. All this is simple editing work. Please, when you see a notable article with bad referencing, improve it or just slap the correct warning. gidonb (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing to improve! No reliable sources exist at all and you’d be hard pressed wasting time trying to “find” them. That’s what brought it to this point. Being on a tv show does not under any case equal automatic notability. Trillfendi (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another distraction. Per WP:ENT, two significant roles make notability. Van der Meer had these roles. In response to insufficient or the lack of WP:BEFORE, you can point out that each one of these roles proves only half notability (i.e. no notability without the other role) but it only shows that this nomination was a mistake. Please withdraw and be more careful next time! gidonb (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is... these roles aren't significant. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Trillfendi (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep" and there are 50 states in the US. All true but totally irrelevant. I do not understand why you feel this urge to comment under people's opinion if you do not use relevant arguments or information. And that's even before we address the intro: "Not even the Dutch article has sources that could save this. No notability." I do not watch tv but started looking into notability after I saw a confused nomination. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've maintained my view from the jump and clearly another editor showed agreement with their vote to delete and rationale. So yes that makes you the confused one here. There is absolutely nothing that can be salvaged in this article, let alone with adequate sourcing. And no, I never withdraw deletion nominations and I never will. Now you're trying to strong-arm me into going your way because you don't like it? That's not how any of this works. Trillfendi (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my point was that this is a badly researched nomination as you never mentioned the relevant standard. A lot of handwaving but the professional standard is met. As is the WP:GNG. The rest was just how I got here. gidonb (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the "professional standard" is "a sentence about someone exists in a random, unreliable website" then that's the very problem. That's the kinda of stuff that makes people refute Wikipedia's credibility. Trillfendi (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So not to confuse you, I had actually linked "the professional standard". To no avail. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify, Van der Meer passes WP:ENT #1 by being Meike Griffioen in Goede tijden, slechte tijden (2000–2002) and the host of the tv show Model in 1 dag (2008–2010). gidonb (talk) 02:44, 23 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) 05:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily passes WP:NACTOR with coverage in reliable Dutch sources, Wikipedia is not limited to biographies of people found on personalised google searches in the US Atlantic306 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page is bad but the subject does appear to be notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 28 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. I must admit that this is one of the more unproductive discussions I have seen in a long time. Many !votes are simply "meets GNG" (or "doesn't meet GNG") without actually giving reasons for that assessment. Sourcing still seems weak (apparently even Amazon links are being used). Nevertheless, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella van Graas[edit]

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

The actress/model lacks significant coverage. I thought I could fix it but any article she is mentioned in is mere mention and it's about other actresses. Exhibit A. Maybe redirect to All My Children. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirect somewhere. Redirect somewhere. I looked too, found nothing that would show notability. Maybe just too soon. --valereee (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC) searching further --valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC) moving back to redirect. With all the sources added by good-faith editors, I am just not seeing more than a single source that shows notability. --valereee (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Accepting third sig source found by User:Genericusername57 --valereee (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is WP:GNG and passes WP:ENT the article should be developed as the subject appeared in notable meadia. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 18 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) 05:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: Appearing notable is not being notable. I delineated the problem. The article is not even one sentence and like I said, when you try to actually find sources to even attempt to rescue this disastrous "article" you get a one name mention at best. That is damn sure not enough for an article. This went sourceless for 10 years so it’s time for it to go. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resume. If I wanted to “clean up” the page that’s what I would have done if it was possible, rather than nominate deletion. Common sense. Trillfendi (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a notable actor who has appeared in mainstream productions. I err on the side of keep if subject is notable, WP:NOTPAPER

When you look at the links Google provides it's "woman has worn a hat", "whosdatedwho.com", "FamousBirthdays", and "woman ate at an in Italian restaurant 9 years ago." Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand why the information about the brands she has modelled for were moved to the Talk page (in 2011) as "trivia". How is that trivial for a model???? I don't see evidence that the film and tv roles she has appeared in are significant roles in notable shows, but if she has had significant modelling jobs, she may meet WP:NMODEL. The nominator's "Exhibit A" above confirms that she was the face of Aveeno. Results on Google Books show: Mademoiselle in 1996 "COVER GIRL Daniella Van Graas is wearing Plumbago"; she was also in Marie Claire in 1996 ("A gauche Christoph Sillem pour Marie Claire bis, Automne/Hiver 95/96, mannequin : Daniella Van Graas ( Ford ) )"; she did represent Breil in 2002 (Sette, settimanale del Corriere della sera: "SPOTTINC 1 di LUCIA CASTAGNA □ «Don't touch my BREIL»: nel nuovo spot, lo dica con decisione Daniella Van Graas, modella olandese che richiama le Bond girls con quasi licenza di ucci- d e r e , in un'atmosfera tipica dei primi film di ...", and Panorama: "I Questo spot è un trampolino □ Debuttano nel nuovo e raffinato spot d'impatto del marchio Breil Daniella Van Graas e Tati Rosalino, statuarie bellezze di professione top model. Un compito di responsabilità: sostituiranno due testimonial dal ..."). There are only snippet views of the publications, so it's not possible without access to hard copies to see more. Given that her modelling career was in the 1990s, we probably need access to contemporary publications which have not been digitised. (Google is most definitely not the be all and end all of sources, especially if additional search terms are not added to reach useful results.) (I have found one newspaper article from 1997 which says "Ford Models celebrated its 50th anniversary .... Donald Trump cruised Ione Skye, Christie Brinkley, Elaine Irwin Mellencamp, Karen Elson and Daniella van Graas."!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi I added some into, a reference and her many magazine covers - seems WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

"Woman wore a hat" in an article “People snap their neck, in a good way, when they see me in these huge hats,” says Daniella Van Graas, a model and actress who lives in New York. “They really are fashion statements.” and FashionModelDirectory... which is not a reliable source. This is the shit I'm talking about. Trillfendi (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi Too funny...I used the source to show where she is living not to highlight her hat. Also she has been on the cover of major magazines - and I added her 2014 movie. She is notable IMO. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is where she lives relevant or of any importance. WP:MILL. Trillfendi (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to fill out her bio - important for the bio. Maybe you can help us to improve the article? Lubbad85 (☎) 17:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already said if I did what I thought could be done I would have done it. But I can't–because there is nothing to save this. Therefore I nominated for deletion. Nothing can fix this article to even the most basic of standards. There is an insidious proliferation of articles on this website, mainly pertaining to models and actors , of barely 3 sentences and random trivia with no verification or reliable sources and people thinking "they exist! they did one job!" is good enough. It's madness. And while I'm at it, none of the "magazine covers" she's done in this century are even notable. A list of "magazine covers" and a filmography of roles of bit parts is a resume. Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, NMODEL doesn't seem to give us any detail on what represents a 'signficant role' for a model -- would 7 fashion covers plus being Aveeno's face for a period get to that level? I think the exhibit A was pointing out that the source gave just a bare mention in an article that was about Aniston, but I'm open to the idea that the covers plus being the face of a major skincare brand would do it. I wish NMODEL gave us more detail. --valereee (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:GNG and passes WP:ENT. Notable actor, fashion model, and cover girl. WP:AFD WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article can should be developed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to explain letter by letter that this is a nomination for deletion–NOT a request for cleanup? What don't y'all get? Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen Honest question: develop the article with what? I may be a bear of little brain, but I'm really not seeing anything remotely reliable that commits more than a single sentence to the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs)

Keep Entertainers are known by their work. A model is notable for being on the cover of major magazines as getting mention for her high paid modeling jobs for big companies. Dream Focus 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More unverified vagueness. Not very useful. If she was on the cover of a Vogue, then it’d be a completely different story. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of vagueness, could you please point to the notability guideline that specifically requires a Vogue cover? Bakazaka (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said notability specifically required a Vogue cover (reading comprehension, try it.) The fact is, Vogue is the most prestigious fashion magazine in the world so if she had a Vogue cover a model notability wouldn’t even be a question.

Are you saying that a Vogue cover always counts as a notable "other production" under WP:ENTERTAINER? The reason I'm asking for clarification is that, even though you may not realize it, you're not actually making a guideline-based case for deletion based on the appropriate guideline. The editors in this thread are acting in good faith to show that the subject meets WP:ENT. Nothing requires you to respond directly to their points, of course, but when someone raises a point about one issue and you talk about something else entirely, or worse, insult and belittle their efforts, it makes the work of building the encyclopedia more difficult. Bakazaka (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan (magazine) has over three million people reading it, Marie Claire has over a million, Fitness (magazine) has a million and a half, etc. Vogue (magazine) has over a million copies also, but doesn't compare with Cosmopolitan of course. Dream Focus 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re clearly looking at the American circulation numbers when she was on the UK cover 20 years ago. A magazine that is a quarter of the size. Doesn’t add up. Trillfendi (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Daniella van Graas passes the professional standard. gidonb (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 10 mainstream films; assorted TV shows; commercials; and major magazine covers (Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan), easily clears the GNG threshold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on Marie Claire Netherlands doesn’t change the fact there are still no reliable sources to verify any career statements. Oh but we’re supposed to make “exceptions” for “FashionModelDirectory” and “idolcelebs” all of a sudden. Trillfendi (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are at least a few WP:RS. i'LL add them to the article. WP:Before says you should have added them before starting the WP:AFD. Cheeers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], to be fair to Trillfendi, I looked, too, and wasn't able to find anything. Sometimes searching can be tricky, and the fact one person doesn't find anything and another person does isn't necessarily evidence the first person didn't do a WP:Before --valereee (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen nope, just me being stupid again --valereee (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I’m saying for the third goddamn time, I tried to do a WP:BEFORE before proposing deletion and all I could find was the Us Weekly article about Jennifer Aniston and the “woman wears hat” article. Read. (Though I’m sure the “reliable” sources you bring forth still won’t be satisfactory for this article.) Trillfendi (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic that you need to verbalize your frustration in such a colorful manner. It doesn't help the discussion, but ... I guess it's your privilege. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=13 (is that an unpingable username?), Trillfendi says she did do a Before, she's said so multiple times, and I am backing her up. You made an accusation that she didn't; she's understandably annoyed. Being condescending doesn't help the discussion either. --valereee (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach me using [[User:7&6=thirteen]] No condescension was intended. Umbrage perhaps, but not condescension I will add the sources I found, which go beyond what was mentioned. But niffnawing on this page isn't helping. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, that YouTube biography is 22 seconds long and sourced to Wikipedia. --valereee (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:ENT Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, there's literally no coverage. How does that satisfy GNG? --valereee (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

valereee You continue to say "no coverage". This is wrong. I said I will fill the article out, and that is in progress. But facts don't matter, either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen of course facts matter! Please assume good faith, here, I'm doing my best to work with you. I struck my 'redirect' vote as a direct result of what looked like well-intentioned editors trying to add to the article. But that YouTube video is not a reliable source -- it's sourced to WP. And IMDb is crowdsourced. --valereee (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not even close to the correct usage of “literally” as there literally is some coverage even if you don’t think it satisfies GNG. The IMDb profile for this person is quite extensive (Daniella van Graas at IMDb) and a page has existed for the subject on Dutch wikipedia since January 2012 (nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniella_van_Graas). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, I consider IMDb and Fashion Model Directory to be zero coverage, but okay: literally no coverage that would serve to prove notability for purposes of GNG. What are you seeing that satisfies GNG? --valereee (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And since when is the existence of an IMDb page, a source that we all know is unacceptable and unreliable, a valid instance of "coverage"? Then what? A Template:BLP IMDb-only refimprove needs to be slapped on an article that will never be improved? When the Dutch language article only references two unreliable sources, IMDb and FMD? Oh wait, that’s because there simply are no reliable sources for her. Trillfendi (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: valereee Trillfendi It seems to me the combination of her modeling, commercials, television, movies collectively prove WP:GNG. The fact that there are few sources/references does not diminish her contributions and her GNG/WP:ENT. I would expect any entertainer who has lived in the public eye (Prominently displayed in mainstream media) for this long to have a Wiki. With the exception of thin sourcing I cannot find a reason to say she is not notable. The woman got married and had three children which helps to explain her absence from the public eye as of late. Much of her work was done prior to this world wide web. I assume WP:AGF from everyone here. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance does not equal general notability without reliable citations for verification. That’s not how any of this works. This is an encyclopedia—the top pillar of Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85, the thin sourcing is the point, I'm afraid. I actually agree that we might need to consider whether our notability guidelines for models ought to include things like magazine covers -- I just got done arguing that major fashion covers may provide coverage as significant as an article inside that same magazine over at WP:RSN; that the fact this kind of coverage is not text does not make it not-significant. But that's not really helpful for building an article. We can't do a gallery of her covers. Which leaves us with an article that could easily be a very small section of an article called "Aveeno's faces" or whatever. --valereee (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources and text. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:7&6=thirteen Good on you! And valereee you are correct. A notable pretty face with thin sourcing poses a problem for the Wiki. It does look an article at this point - much better than when the afd was placed. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Trillfendi I do think we have more than appearance of GNG. I hope you take a fresh look at the article. The article you nominated has been improved to the point, where maybe you could consider withdrawing the nomination Lubbad85 (☎) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly as I predicted none of the sources are remotely satisfactory. The sources about Jennifer Aniston simply says Jennifer is more famous. This link to Amazon.com for an unavailable 23 year old magazine is an atrocity and an abject embarrassment that anyone would even think to include. The Japanese “source” simply says Doutzen Kroes and “Daniel” van Graas are tall people. And abc-daytime.fandom.com—are you fucking serious?! Did you even look? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. It only emboldened my decision to nominate for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone, in full dramatic irony, really put a fandom wikia blog that anybody can edit as a “reference” proves my point to the T. (And oh would you look at that, their reference is IMDb. Full circle.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen I'm not sure any of those rise to the level of proving notability, even added together. The Dutch television show in which she was one of three 'most beautiful girls in the class' featured in that episode would be the only one that seems to support notability. I would accept that as one, but I'd want to see at least a couple more, and I'm just not seeing them. There are articles about Aniston, affiliated sources, crowdsourced, and a lot of bare mentions. Which three sources would you argue are the BEST -- the most significant coverage in the most reliable sources? --valereee (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to be persuaded or repent. "And yet it moves." Hard to get any sincerity from a true believer asked to recant. I only expect you will follow WP:Consensus, as we move over the line to Keep. In fact, how you or I feel is irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What User:7&6=thirteen said. #truth. valereee I like that yoy have kept an open mind in the process. Trillfendi I am sorry to read that you are married to the position even when faced with new information Lubbad85 (☎) 20:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My friends, if I saw notability, I would happily accept it. I'm just having a hard time seeing it. I'll repeat: Which three sources do you see as proving notability? I'm accepting the Dutch TV show; can you point me at the two others that you feel prove notability? --valereee (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

valereee You will have to pick from what you see. Thin sourcing but none the less GNG so you will need to decide. May the force be with you! Lubbad85 (☎) 20:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85, that's the problem. What I see is nothing; I was hoping you or 7&6 could point out where I was missing something. --valereee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, it has been dealt with. Inclusion of such drivel was a disgrace to Wikipedia and was removed at once. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi please stop the malicious editing on the article. IMO it is very poor form to revert especially during an afd that that you started. We are well aware of your position, but this type of editing is harmful to this process. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has now become a WP:Edit war, which should be resolved on the article talk page. Sorry you feel the need to act out. It won't change the outcome here. Trillfendi you are upagainst WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states clear as day in WP:INTREF: One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. Therefore you putting unquestionably unreliable sources like “idolcelebs”, “fandom.com” and an invalid Amazon sale link is doing the complete opposite and contentious material must be removed. If you find an actually reliable source for your claims then do so. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi You have made your position clear. You want the article deleted. But at this point you are for sure WP:TENDENTIOUS. The afd is in place and that does not change. It is poor form for you to shout down those wikipedians working to improve the article and to then step on the work others are doing by thrice reverting. I suggest you take a step back and allow the afd to play out. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not an improvement of the article!!! It was the antithesis of that, no matter what position I have on the article’s deletion I’m not going to sit by and watch disastrous sources that don’t in any way adhere to Wikipedia policy be added to it under the guise of “sources”. What don’t you get? Your thinking of adding any source is an improvement to it is unmitigated fallacy. If you really sit there and think in-any-other-case unaccepted, unreliable things like fan blogs add value then, well, that’s completely illogical. Trillfendi (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, you need to stop reverting, and I think you need to step away for a bit. Your position is clear, and while I agree with you, an edit war is not the solution. --valereee (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as you can see I haven’t touched the article since. If you think these abhorrent “souces” are warranted, then so help you God. Trillfendi (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow 'nuf said. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my principles on this are summarized in the lead of Wikipedia’s content guideline and I will devoutly abide. Be Best. Trillfendi (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've still yet to see a reliable secondary source that commits more than a sentence to the subject of the article, and apparently the attempts to "improve" the article include wikias and amazon.com. Much of the current article can and should be removed as a BLP violation. What's left isn't an encyclopedia article. GMG ^talk 22:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved my !vote back to redirect. No one has been able to point out which sources prove notability; the recently added sources just feel like a refbomb of blogs, crowdsourced, affiliated, bare mentions, and bad sources. I am completely puzzled as to why this AfD has gone so wrong. I can see this is likely to survive, guess I'll just have to take it off my watchlist lol. --valereee (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things do tend to go awry on this website when policy is perceived as a personal agenda or vendetta. Thankfully, people like GreenMeansGo recognize what I have been saying the whole time without making it about feelings. The recent “sources” are an abomination, removal of them is mandatory, and this article is unsalvageable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: In trying to figure out what the heck happened here, I visited the deletion notification lists. This article apparently became a project of WP:Article Rescue Squadron. I'd suggest taking a look at the sources that have been added to this article when assessing strength of arguments. --valereee (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so you know, a link to the unreliable Bellazon forum where people gossip about models and an archived empty comp card from her former employer, Ford Models, are BLP violations and still not remotely a contribution to notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sourcing has been improved and most of your concerns have been addressed. This was a community effort by User:Genericusername57, User:GreenMeansGo User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång User:Nikkimaria User:Davemck User:Gidonb User:Lubbad85 User:Valereee and me. They deserve our thanks. This is precisely how WP:Article Rescue Squadron is supposed to work. I am addressing the closer, as I don't expect the three shouters to change their position. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, I actually added the only citation that provides significant coverage in a reliable source, so you should probably include me in your thanks instead of calling me names. :D So you're saying Genericusername57, GreenMeansGo, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nikkimaria, Davemck, Gidonb all feel this subject qualifies as notable; that does make me want to take a fresh look at the sources. I've gone through every one of them. As of right now, 1 & 2: lists of beautiful Dutch women 3. IMDb mirror site? 4. bare mention 5.Significant coverage (that's the one I added) 6. bare mention 7. affiliated 8. cover description 9. idolcelebs.com 10. fashionmodeldirectory.com 11. Doesn't seem to mention her? 12 - 18 stories about Jennifer Aniston 19. magazine cover 20-28 bare mentions in cast lists 29. Is the same as #5. As I have said before, I am open minded to the idea that sheer numbers of mentions is good enough to prove GNG. I think it represents a change to policy, though. But maybe that's how we should consider models? --valereee (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your characterization of "the only source." But it is a useful one.

But I added you in the note and will add you as a contributor in the WP:DYK, which is not a Zero sum game. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahaha fair enough :D --valereee (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on a hook would be appreciated. Of course, this has to survive deletion, but Tempus fugit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the only thing I've done on the article is remove sources that were of such exceptionally poor quality I was willing to claim a 3RR exception under BLP. There are still a number of sources I would have already removed if there were not an AfD open to give the appearance I was trying to unduly affect the outcome, and if the article is kept, I fully intend to remove them once the discussion is concluded. This can barely be called a source at all. I see no reason to think this is reliable for a BLP. This is scarcely a source and neither is this. For the remainder, as far as I can tell, the TVvisie citation (of whatever reliability it might claim) is the only source that is actually about the subject of the article. Much of the rest are passing mention (e.g., [26], [27], [28], [29]), most of which don't commit even a single full sentence to the subject.

The fact that nearly all the source are talking about subjects other than van Graas is reflected in the current article: eleven words describing what Aveeno is, two to three sentences that are more about Jennifer Aniston than about van Graas, two sentences that are nothing but name dropping based on passing mentions in cast listings.

Whether the article is kept or deleted, when we remove the unreliable sources and fluff, there isn't very much left. GMG ^talk 12:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreenMeansGo I appreciate you not deleting sources you have a low opinion of at this time. The BLP criteria as it relates to the 3RR is to prevent negative content and libelous material...this is not that. WP:AGF User:7&6=thirteen Thank you for your efforts! Lubbad85 (☎) 13:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that you patently see that when we remove the unreliable sources and fluff, there isn’t very much left, least of all that which can substantiate an encyclopedic article, I feel vindication. Trillfendi (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi You should take notice that your stated opinion does not have WP:CONSENSUS - repeating the same mantra over and over is unhelpful and does not change minds here. Some editors here are being constructive. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said I agree with everything GreenMeansGo expressed, it doesn’t have anything to do with what anyone else says nor your opinion on consensus, and I didn’t ask for nor need your approval. Trillfendi (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll accept AGF the article User:Genericusername57 has found behind a paywall as a second source with significant coverage. It seems to be titled something like "Sparkling next to Bruce Willis" so it's likely about van Glaas rather than Willis. --valereee (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "legal and professional solutions" website now constitutes "significant coverage" for film? Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, Lexis/Nexis is a legal document and news database. --valereee (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, if you genuinely don’t know what LexisNexis is perhaps you need some more experience before participating in AFD discussions, this is just sad. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the LexisNexis is, Horse. But continue taking everything out of context. Trillfendi (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moving to keep, accepting genericusername's third sig cov source AGF. Great work, generic! --valereee (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To supplement your good faith, I can confirm that the 650+ word 2007 Noordhollands Dagblad article is entirely about the subject, with several quotes from her interspersed with career achievements and highlights. The 200 word 2014 Noordhollands Dagblad source is a book review of a book in which famous and not-famous people say what they think beauty is, and the review simply mentions the subject in passing as a top model and one of the people in the book (here is the book website: [30]). Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the book ref definitely isn't sigcov, but I think the Metro NL one (also available through Lexis) is. Cheers, gnu57 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added a Noordhollands Dagblad reference that isn't behind a paywall. On and beyond, there are three detailed (and different) listings in the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant for the televsion special that I haven't added. I did add a newspaper article in which the husband reacts to an event. I also added, expanded, deleted and moved texts as needed. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't subscribe to the theory that the plural of "passing mention" is "significant coverage", we have now reached the point where WP:GNG is passed, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been provided a copy of the main article from Metro NL. I ran it through Google translate, and have put some quotes into our article. FWIW, it is about her. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG does not reach that low. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, an opinion unemcumbered by actually reading the article and the cited sources. Just saw you here. Welcome aboard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reliable sourcing. Per WP:NMODEL, per WP:GNG, per WP:ANYBIO.BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work sourcing references and adding information. Now definitely meets WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is very thinly sourced for what it is, which concerns me. I've looked at all of the references I have access to. It's definitely source-bombed. The Noordhollands Dagblad article is probably fine as it at least has the appearance of being about her, but for someone as notable as this article makes her out to be, there's a lack of reliable sources and a whole lot of WP:SYNTH through one-sentence mentions - there's nothing here from a sourcing point of view that jumps out and screams clear WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 02:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the person who has posted all of this appears to be a fan of Van Graas:), scrolling down to the April 3, 2016 post there is a scan of some pages out of TopModel Russia that may discuss her, now if only it was larger it might have something useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bellazon is a random forum for people to gossip about models. The question really is, since when is that permissible? For anyone to have even included it in the article at all, Lord knows what they tried to extract from it, is grievous. Had it come from a reliable source it’d be a different story. Trillfendi (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't included. You are hypothetical, Tilting at windmills. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was included, by you no less, until someone had the good sense to remove it. Don’t try to backtrack now. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi You can take pride in the fact that your afd caused others to do this much research. It is astonishing that people have worked so hard on this article - and I wish you would acknowledge the efforts. This is not a loss for you, this is a win for Wikipedia - and all because of the Afd you placed. So bravo! Please take pride in the fact that your afd improved this article. If it gets deleted or kept is out of our hands now. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you don’t realize is: this isn’t a competition. No one “wins” or “loses”. We do the process until it ends and then we move on. I would “take pride” if people brought forth exemplary sources such as the New York Times, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, Elle, etc. that give valuable information about a model’s career that otherwise I may have missed if they existed. Not scrounging through the bowels of the Internet to find a comment by “ewell666” then falsely attributing it to a modeling agency, or a mistranslation in a random Japanese blog about how Dutch people are tall and claiming with no evidence that’s how “Daniel” van Graas got into the modeling world (Dutch people being way taller than average is simply an evolutionary trait, it has no bearing on how she got discovered which of course wasn’t mentioned), or the variation of IMDb “cinafilm”, or a bunch of sources about Jennifer Aniston and her “eight figure” salary from a drug store lotion brand, or an unavailable amazon.com product (who does that? Seriously.), resorting to Lexis-Nexis for basic information, her husband’s job, or why “curiously TV Guide fails note her appearance”, yet calling that an “improvement” (on top of the fact that an top to bottom copy edit is desperately needed); then growling at me for pointing out why it’s so terribly unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. No, shan’t. Trillfendi (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick points here. One, Lexis-Nexis is a huge information company that, among other services, provides access to newspaper and magazine archives, so "resorting to Lexis-Nexis" is not a problem, any more than resorting to JSTOR or resorting to Proquest or resorting to Newspapers.com would be if you were actually trying to find sources. Thinking it's a problem reflects a basic misunderstanding of what Lexis-Nexis is. Two, that's the second time you've claimed that the Japanese blog source says "Daniel". It doesn't. However, if you're trying to read the story using Google Translate, then the Google translated text says "Daniel". But that's an issue with how you're looking at the source, not the source itself. The common theme here is that some of your objections are based on issues related to your understanding of the situation. You might benefit from reflecting on that point. Bakazaka (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the website is, it’s just my opinion that it’d be much better for information should come from the original source’s archive, at least that would be preferable rather. Other than that, I stand by what I wrote. Two Dutch models are tall is akin to two Scottish women are ginger. Trillfendi (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!, i didn't know my little comment would generate so much text:), there is no problem with bringing up a fan's scan of a magazine article (note: i did't say that the fanpage is ok as a reference), a wikieditor who knows russian and has access to russian fashion magazines can now check out the article and see if it has anything useable/relevant/significant, this would usually be brought up on an article's talkpage but as there is an afd..... Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you click on each page of the scan posted on the forum, it will expand so you can read the text. I don't speak russian, but it looks to me like a biographical overview followed by a fluff interview. Cheers, gnu 57 06:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that forum was previously (indefensibly) added as a source and it was removed. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, no probs:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons of people who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:12, 3 May 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. Almost all "keep" !votes emphasize the importance of the subject. Unfortunately, there is a pucity of sources and policy-based arguments. However, with the nom effectively being the only "delete" !vote, there clearly is no consensus to delete at this time. If improvement of the article is not forthcoming, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X Input Method[edit]

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

While some sources mention this in passing, I can't find any in-depth coverage of this outside a few technical manuals/documentation already linked in the article. I don't think this has stand-alone notability, through perhaps it can be just soft deleted by redirecting to X Window System, particularly if anyone can figure out a section this could be merged to? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Regular nom. who still has this in progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) makes an arguably WP:POINTY nom. with let's take this to AfD and seeming fails to follow WP:BEFORE which says if you have concerns raise on the talk page first and don't waffle about how redirects have been considered in one's mind and not discussed on the talk page or at project line if the issue is more widespread. I can't actually be totally certain about what this is about however while with current linux and unix distributions keyboard input seems to run seamlessly out of the box I have distant memories of much tinkering and swearing with xmodmap utility and friends to get my British keyboard to work sweetly and stay working sweetly with X (let alone the graphics card). The is a template Too technical for most users to understand (can't remember it's name) and that would be a good start. This is probably a bit geeky.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a valid argument? There's no rule saying one cannot start multiple AFDs, or that only one software-related topic can be subject to deletion. And WP:BEFORE doesn't require talk discussion, it only suggests it, and for such obscure topics the chance of someone replying on talk are abysmally low. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books lists several books about X window programing mentioning in detail subject of the article (eg. [31], pp. 359-363; I see only preview, but looks like RS). One may question independence of some of them, but coverage is certainly there (probably even more in offline sources). I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book you mention seems to dedicate not 5 pages, but a single paragraph to the topic, 7 lines total ([32]). The term is also mention in passing on few other pages, but I don't think this constitutes 'in-depth coverage'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I wrote, I don´t see all the pages. As chapter 11.2 is named "Overview of the X Input Method Architecture", I assumed it is devoted to the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: As has been stated repeatedly, this software has historic significance and is still supported as a valid input method by major software vendors (IBM, Oracle, HP, etc.) it is also still used where compatibility is required between various Unix systems allowing targeting of XFree86/X11 Systems independent of age. User:Piotrus, this is the second time you have nominated this article for deletion, the last time being approximately 6 months ago. What do you feel has changed to warrant deletion now/What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements. I am attempting to WP:AGF and want to understand your viewpoint as I currently don't agree with it. Andrdema (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic significance according to whom? WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a recommended argument. If you have sources that it is used and discussed, present then. Opinions don't carry much weight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Please re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL it states "you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic," Which I did. Using the term Historic Significance is a near empty term in this context as per it's definition: Historical significance is the process used to evaluate what was significant about selected events, people, and developments in the past. Historians use different sets of criteria to help them make judgements about significance meaning it can be highly subjective. I justify it's significance by pointing to a wide range of articles over time and regularly updated documentation spanning nearly 20 years including design paradigms and choices made during some of the first designs of a modular and portable input specification. As JoergenB points out there is over 130 links from within enwiki alone which is impressive for a part of an OS. Lastly, you have not answered my question. What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements. If you cannot come up with any, why do you insist on only picking apart others arguments? Andrdema (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete questions: (1) Could anyone please provide a link to the six months old deletion proposal discussion Andrdema referred to supra? (2) @Piotrus:, if Andrdema is right, could you please in a few words indicate why you take this to a new AfD so soon? JoergenB (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was Prod back then [33]. Procedurally, this AfD is OK. Pavlor (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Thanks for the link; but this did not help me to find that older discussion (even if it did contain Piotrus's brief edit comment). The link in the template box goes back to this AfD; and the history of this page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/X_Input_Method) only concerns the present AfD; it was created by Piotrus 26 April 2019. Where is the earlier discussion archived? JoergenB (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoergenB: You are actually right I misread that diff. It was the beginning of this deletion request (the proposal) thank you for correcting that. @Piotrus: I retract any actual or implied insinuation it brought with it. but the second part of my question stands. What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements.Andrdema (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrdema: The sources present in the article are very poor - either mention in passing or primary (not independent) official manuals/documentation. As such, they clerly fail GNG that requires them to be independent and in-depth. Sources presented here are a bit better, namely there is indeed a chapter about this software tool in [34], which seems like a reliable source. It is, nonetheless, a single source, and GNG requires multiple sources. If someone else can point me to another source that is independent and in-depth, I would consider withdrawing this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are approximately 130 links to X Input Method from enwiki. The manual for the method is gnu licenced, whence material from there should be freely available, which possibly might be of some use, if anyone wants to extend this stub somewhat. JoergenB (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still supported, passes NSOFT and part of X. scope_creep^Talk 11:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. (However, I may be a bit biased from being an older (68 years) university researcher, used to work with Linux, and actually (still) using POSIX for 'semi-graphical' output from a C++ programme of mine to an xterm.) I did search for "X Input Method" with Google Scolar, and got just 32 hits.
On the other hand, searching for XIM Linux gave over 900 hits. Most of these were in Chinese, and I suspect that (like the paper Localizing GNU/Linux and XFree86 A Thailand’s Experience found among the original 32, which also has a full section (of a few pages) about the X Input Method) they largely are concerned with locales, adapting to Asiatic languages. (I incidently also found this blog from 2017 arguing for employing the X Input Method for precisely such reasons; but of course blogs are invalid as Wp sources.) The first score scolarly articles seemed to be from between 2000 and 2006, which make them recent from my perspective (but perhaps ancient in the view of modern young wikipedians?).
Thus, I think that the historical interest should be enough; but I'm not sure that XIM doesn't also have some interest as a protocol in actual contemporary use. JoergenB (talk) 18:45, 30 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. Ignoring the nom which was blocked, Bearcat's careful analysis carries the day. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Aggarwala[edit]

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

I don't see sufficient evidence of notability. He is a mid-level employees of a company, he was a mid-level government official and the page only has 2ish examples where he is cited in independent secondary media, and even those cites seem skimpy. Bene.Nota (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:BEFORE for the basic due diligence before an AfD. Here is a 2,500 word profile of Aggarwala. StreetsBlog NYC has a four-part interview totaling 4600 words. Another interview running 3,900 words. There are dozens of stories about a variety of events and topics that report Aggarwala playing a significant role. So the subject has received coverage in multiple independent sources where he is the primary subject, and has played a prominent role in several events and issues spaning a long period of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, but I still respectfully suggest Delete regarding the particular sources mentioned above my concerns are:

::: The profile is from 12 years ago, from the The New York Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Sun) which was only published from 2002 to 2008 (an online version has been published sporadically ever since) and was chronically underfunded and I am not clear The New York Sun meets WP:RS, in particular "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable ..."

The other two sources cited above are interviews. WP:IV makes the point that interviews should be thought of as primary sources not to be used for notability, though with caveats (though IMO being interviewed in a major publication The New York Times, WSJ, etc would be more likely to be notable). Regarding the two interviews you mentioned they were both in minor/niche/blog like publications, and for both of them I think their are legitimate concerns (again) re WP:RS and WP:IS

In summary, yes the guy talks at a lot of conferences, he has occasional coverage in second/third tier sources which probably don't meet standards for Reliability and Independence. But, basically he seems to be a mid-level person who is not inherently notable. Unless someone can point to significant coverage in something like NY Times, WSJ, CNN, etc (i.e., something that is unambiguously reliable) I don't think he meet WP:Notability Bene.Nota (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Interviews is just some guy's opinions. It has no standing as a guideline, let alone policy. A self-published blog is a primary source. An interview by a reliable, professional third party is not. A serious, edited publication does not simply hand over a platform for any self-promoting person, as if it were a Livejournal or Facebook page. You don't get lengthy interviews in professional media for the asking or for pay. They choose to devote space to subjects that are notable. The quantity of space a publication gives to an interview subject is evidence of their notability. Interviews of Bill Clinton in major publications are significantly longer than Q&A with a local ice cream stand operator. Whoever wrote that essay doesn't seem to understand the difference between social media and a professional journalist interviewing a notable subject.

I know some editors would like to elevate the opinions in that essay on interviews to the level of a guideline, but they have failed to do so because consensus doesn't support it. At such time as consensus supports discounting interviews for notability, we will say so in the notability guidelines, or the reliable sources guidelines.

Your claims that the New York Sun isn't a reliable have no basis. Who cares if it was published in print from 2002 to 2008, and then online from 2009? It's an arbitrary complaint. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interviews are not completely inadmissible as Wikipedia sourcing — they can absolutely be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts in an article that already has a strong WP:GNG-passing mix of other sources besides the interviews — but they are not in and of themselves notability-clinching sources if they are the best sources on offer, because people do not get to talk themselves into Wikipedia if they have virtually no third-party journalism being written about them in the third-person by other people. And yes, BeneNota is also correct that in order to count as support for notability, one of the things a media outlet has to have is an established reputation as a reliable and trustworthy source — and another thing it has to have is a named masthead of its editorial chain of command, which is something I'm simply not finding on the New York Sun website at all. Web media startups are not always accorded equal value as reliable sources — coverage in a little-known community hyperlocal does not count for nearly as much as coverage in a major general-market daily like The New York Times would. So the interviews and the New York Sun would be fine as additional sources if the rest of the sourcing around them were better than it is, but they don't make him notable all by themselves if they are the best sources on offer. And everything else here is either a primary source that does not count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of something or someone else — which means that none of this is good enough. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep everything and everyone that meets or exceeds two media hits": it also tests for the depth, range, quality and context of the coverage, not just the raw number of footnotes present, so Q&A interviews and small community hyperlocals are not enough in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - the article has been nominated, and had large parts of the text removed, by now confirmed sockpuppets of the same user, about whom conflicts of interest with Steven Strauss had previously been raised and about which there are ongoing issues. Firstly, we should resolve those issues, and before evidence is deleted by removing the article. Avaya1 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. As for GNG, there are some low-key interviews but that's pretty borderline, and they are in very niche outlets. Nothing else, coverage wise or just plain WP:NBIO wise, suggest he on the right side of borderline. And the entry still reads and looks like a low quality paid-for WP:VANITY like bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 26 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 Sky (Canadian band). Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Renald[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a musician, who was notable primarily as a member of a band rather than as an individual. This has existed as a stable redirect to the band for a full decade, before getting spun out into a standalone biography within the last 24 hours -- but the biography makes no strong claim of independent notability outside the band context, and isn't referenced to particularly strong sources: other than one reliable source obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to a tweet, a simple directory list of performing credits with no substantive editorial content, and a primary source video clip on Vimeo. As always, a musician is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his work technically metaverifies its own existence on video streaming sites or because people have tweeted about him on social media -- the notability test is the degree to which media outlets have devoted their editorial resources to publishing content about him, but only one source here meets that standard and one source isn't enough all by itself. I'd be comfortable with restoring the original redirect, but that should be only after the edit history is deleted so that it can't turn into a revert war. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019

I concur that as a stand alone article, this may need far more to become valid. But I must admit it contains some info not found in Sky (Canadian band). So what I would suggest is that Sky (Canadian band) has a section about its members, and this information here can be incorporated there in a separate subsection called James Renald. Similarly for Antoine Sicotte. Incidentally I used to follow the musical activities of this band based in Montreal and they were truly impressive in their peak of success. werldwayd (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contributed to a talk page before, so hopefully I've done this correctly. While I still believe the James Renald page should stand on its own, I wouldn't entirely dispute moving his profile onto the Sky page -- even though a large portion of his career was spent outside Sky. If your recommendation is to do that, someone should handle a biography on Antoine who is familiar with his extensive work on Quebec television and as a chef. It may also be a consideration to incorporate a short biography on Anastasia into that page as well, and perhaps even consider removing Karl Wolf's page and adding him to Sky's profile as well? To me, this seems like a lot of fuss with some very shaky standards for who qualifies for the Sky page and who doesn't.

As far as I'm concerned, Renald's life stands on its own. Whether or not he's substantive enough to merit his own page is a matter of opinion. Outside of Canada, Sky might not seem like a big deal, but their debut album was considered one of the most popular Canadian albums of the late 1990s, had numerous hit singles, and is culturally familiar, even aside from Renald's other work. The lack of citation from other sources is simply because music coverage in Canada is pretty sparse with only a few active music journalists at major outlets. Renald's death was also reported on this blog, but I felt it was not accurate enough to be considered a substantial source: http://coolopolis.blogspot.com/2019/02/star-montreal-singer-songwriter-james.html. In the meantime, I've attempted to add a few more citations. Digitalkidd13 (talk)

Just to be clear, the difference between a person who gets their own article and a person who just gets redirected to their band doesn't have very much to do with what the article says — it hinges on how well the article references what it says. To stand alone, what he needs to have is a significant volume of reliable source media coverage that's specifically about him. It can't be Twitter tweets; it can't be directory listings; it can't be his own work on video-sharing sites; it can't be glancing namechecks of his existence in the context of being fundamentally about the band or somebody he collaborated with.
To support his standalone notability as an individual, a source has to be real media coverage that is substantively and specifically about him, which is why the new sources you added still aren't cutting it at all: two just mention his name in the process of being about other people, and the third is covering the band, not him as a person. The obituary is still the only source you've added that's doing anything in terms of establishing that he's notable enough to have his own standalone biography separate from the band's article — but the obituary isn't doing enough all by itself, because making a person notable enough for his own encyclopedia article requires a lot more than just one notability-supporting source.
Incidentally, you were right to discount the blog, but not for the reasons you stated: Blogspot blogs are never reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Their admissibility doesn't hinge on whether you personally think they were accurate or not — blogs are always an automatic non-starter because blog. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the problem with your argument, though it may be some kind of overarching standard that doesn't account for context, is that James Renald largely spent his career as a reclusive person, so a large portion of these media sources "about him" that you're looking for don't exist, simply because his anxiety prevented him from doing a large portion of interviews as a solo act, and actually made him shy away from credit. To me, this standard you're expecting doesn't account for the exceptional circumstances of his life, and his career was varied enough that lumping him into the Sky bio doesn't make sense to me. I'll continue to accumulate additional sources in the meantime and await future comments from others on this talk page. Digitalkidd13 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Media sources about him don't exist" is not a reason why you get to use substandard sources to make a Wikipedia article happen — it's a reason why a Wikipedia article doesn't get to happen in the first place. There is no human being in history who is so critically important for Wikipedia to have an article about that they're exempted from having to have the correct kind of sources to properly support an article: if the correct kind of sources about him don't exist, that in and of itself is exactly the reason why he doesn't get to have his own standalone biographical article independently of the band. The quality of the sources you can show, namely their reliability and their depth, is what determines whether a musician qualifies for a standalone article or just a redirect to his band. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who knew James, this wikipedia page should not be deleted. All of this information is accurate. While I'm personally not sure how he would feel about this article, I feel that it is important for people to know him, his story, and how truly amazing and inspiring he was to so many people including myself. Do not take this wikipedia page down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.161.20 (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody thinks the person was inspiring — if we did, then literally everybody who exists at all could put themselves into Wikipedia just by claiming that they had been (or wanted to become) inspiring to somebody. The inclusion test on Wikipedia always has been, still is, and will continue to be the depth of reliable source coverage the person has or has not received in media — getting this kept requires better sources, not just a rhapsody about how inspiring he was to you personally. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that this article should be kept up due to the fact that he was inspiring to me or even others, I am saying that this article should be kept up because it is accurate. James Renald was an amazing musician who was in a well known successful band and was a successful solo musician as well. He deserves to have this wikipedia page. As I previously said, coming from someone who personally knew him, all of this information about him is completely accurate. This page should not be removed.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky (Canadian band) - as was the case until April 10. I suspect that Renald's biography was spun out into its own article to commemorate his recent death, but unfortunately he achieved little notability outside the band. He received some obituaries in major Canadian newspapers but even those described him as a member of the band. Also, the voter above must read WP:MEMORIAL, which says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ENT WP:GNG WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 17:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTA -- that last vote requires some explanation of how the stated policies have been satisfied by the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ENT is not just automatically cleared by everybody who has ever existed as a music industry person, and GNG is not automatically cleared by the existence of a single obituary in the newspaper upon his death. GNG requires multiple sources about him, and ENT requires evidence of distinctions. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky (Canadian band). This unfortunately falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which is policy. The subject can (and should) be covered adequately in one paragraph in the band article, which already cites the main RS cited here. So, redirect as an alternative to deletion, keeping the history in case someone wants to salvage some of this text to expand the Sky article. Bakazaka (talk) 22:01, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Essex[edit]

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

Minor tv personality who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable 9H48F (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:It This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search turned up little more than non-WP:RS tabloid newspaper gossip, and no independent third-party RS mentions. Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like this was originally a redirect that someone altered. So this could just turn back into a Redirect to Celebs Go Dating. Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with above per ATD. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made significant improvements to the article which I created as a redirect and which TellyShows turned into an article. She meets WP:GNG - there are sources added from many reliable sources - BBC, The Independent, The Guardian etc.; I'm struggling to see how she doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's also a potential case for WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. However, of the multiple tv shows she's been on, she has been a significant part of an episode or series, but apart from Celebs GO Dating I don't know if they would overall count as 'significant' roles. However, she does meet WP:BASIC / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cyfal (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason as above. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate the good work done by Boleyn, 7 of the articles arise directly out of her participation in the single show, Celebs Go Dating, 1 (the Channel4 listing) is a press release, 1 (the itv) is a video clip, and 2 are simple listings (RT and Spears). Appears to fit WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment decline WP:BIO1E, now she does meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 26 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 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koeberg Alert[edit]

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

I'm not really convinced of the notability of this group. They have fewer than 500 followers on Facebook and don't seem to have much external media coverage. Additionally, the page has been riddled with problems for years, in part due to a lack of usable sources about them. The article doesn't have a neutral point of view and I've had difficulty coming up with sources to back up many of its claims. Lengau (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources in books - [35][36][37][38][39], seems to be a significant anti-nuclear organisation in South Africa and should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hzh. Facebook and other social media have no relevance when it comes to our notability guidelines. Someone may have 1 million followers on social media but not deemed notable. And another may have 100 and deemed notable. The number of followers on social media is irrelevant here. Any ad or neutrality issue can be resolved by editing the article. Editing problems are not grounds for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hzh's sources. Surprising amount of coverage to be honest, but it has plenty of sourcing and is a worthwhile addition. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 3 May 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 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dade County Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

I PRODed this as it seemed to me to have only local notability. DePRODed by another editor with no explanation. I still think it does not meet the notability threshold for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided sources are routine and local coverage, insufficient for WP:NCORP. There is recent local coverage of the appearance of a bank official in a documentary film and about a lawsuit following a shooting incident at an ATM: again, these are a long way from WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 3 May 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 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ortona Gymnastics Club[edit]

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

I PRODed this as I don’t believe the organisation is notable. PROD removed by another editor without explanation. The refs suggest no more than local notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article relies on primary sources. A search for significant coverage in independent reliable sources came up empty. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, no significant media coverage, poor sources. Pretty much every sports club will have some level of local notability. Spyder212 (talk) 04:53, 27 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 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror, Mirror (Stevie Nicks album)[edit]

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

Maybe it's an entirely recorded but unreleased album. Maybe it's fans misunderstanding bits and pieces of reports over the years. Maybe it's an embryonic version of one or more released albums. The various versions of this article can't seem to decide.[40]

In any case, this is an unreleased album. Per WP:NMUSIC, unreleased albums are rarely notable. Per WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, this album is not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find any meaningful coverage of the album and every version of the article I've checked has been based on unofficial fan sites and/or material taken out of context. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article based on rumor, speculation and original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the WP:GNG, and as the nom points out, is very confusingly written. I’m still not sure what exactly it is. An unreleased album? An unused album title? I don’t know, but it’s probably better discussed in her main article or other relevant album articles, not as a stand-alone article. But even that is only if there is reliable source coverage. There isn’t any if that in the current article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yuck, Wikipedia's critics love to point at articles like this that sit undetected for years. If any of this mess is to be believed, Mirror, Mirror was an early title for The Other Side of the Mirror (album), fans created a false legend of a lost album, and this article is trying to say that there is no such thing. But there is no verification that this rumor ever got noticed by the outside world. If a minor album title change has kicked off decades of controversy among Stevie Nicks fans, they haven't been paying attention to all the sex and drugs over in her other band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom and per DarkOrchid's comments above. Gimubrc (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Spyder212 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails GNG. I have attempted to locate sources on it, but I cannot find anything from reliable/credible sources. I can only see information from self-published publications. Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 27 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 13:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ridgeway (street in Rothley)[edit]

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

Some local interest coverage. Most sources are property listings, stats and advertorials. Fails notability for places. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Wikipedia: Notability (streets, roads, and highways). Many independent, reliable references. Unique street and is well known. User talk:Qualitee123 19:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any coverage beyond routine coverage and minimal local coverage. Several of the sources on the article don't actually support the statement they are attached to. Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Much of the article is merely repeating that the street has high property prices with different words, which is already covered sufficiently in the article at Rothley. Nothing here is worth merging, and the article title is an unlikely search term, so there's no reason to redirect. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Delete - Firstly, the notability policy indicated by Qualitee wasn't implemented. There isn't enough coverage (that's reliably and in-depth enough on the road itself) to justify GNG notability, and it doesn't pass WP:GEOROAD. ATD seems to hold up, and there may be additional content that could be added elsewhere and clearly Qualitee is the only substantive editor - why not draftify? @Necrothesp: - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor below makes a note that logically this would still belong in another article, so draftifying in hope of being a future article doesn't make much sense Nosebagbear (talk)

Delete as failing WP:GEOROAD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which does little but present a sequence of reporting about selling prices for properties in a street. I am seeing nothing here which constitutes encyclopaedic content or justifies WP:GEOROAD inclusion; the passing mention in the article about Rothley village itself is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm sorry, but this article was written as if it were a Primary School project, there is no notability to it. The photos are completely unnecessary as 1) They're more or less of a single house, and 2) They're a grainy quality. Only thing of probable notability would be the mentioned thefts, but if anything, they should be shunted into the parent page, rather than being the foundations to why this article has survived so long. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:GEOROAD states "Topic notability for ... local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject.", there are sources out there ie. Leicester Mercury - "Revealed: Top 10 most expensive streets in Leicester" - "However, the dearest street in Leicester is still over £1million behind The Ridgeway in Rothley, which was named the most expensive place in the county.", Moneywise.co.uk - "Revealed: Britain’s most expensive streets, as the number of £1m-plus homes goes up by 20%" - The Ridgeway no. 9, Born Yesterday: The News as a Novel - "The difference is that Orchard House in the commuter village of Rothley is a close neighbour of The Ridgeway, singled out as one of the ten most expensive places to live in Britain by the Sunday Times at around the time of Madeleine's disappearance.", but these are really just snips, and discuss how expensive the street is and thats all, ditto with the sources in the article, so this looks like a delete (i note that there is a mention at Rothley which is fine). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 2 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Alan Bailey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Had a lot of bit roles as a child in the 1960s and 70s, but nothing substantial. His only major role was the lead in At the End of the Rainbow, which does not seem to be a major film. Natg 19 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An actor does not have to have been in a "major" film to have an article. This person meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. MarnetteD|Talk 19:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list some RS that show he passes GNG? I was unable to find any (thought that might be because his roles were 40 years ago). Natg 19 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his roles were either flashbacks or those who were so minor that his character didn't even have a last name. We ahve tended to delete child actor articles. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not easy to assess the notability of this actor when even the obituaries of the other David Bailey (actor) claim some of this David Alan Bailey's roles! Looking at evidence for WP:NACTOR, the subject of this article definitely starred in At the End of the Rainbow, which is notable in that it has its own WP article. He also starred in Three Wise Boys, which does not have a WP article, so is probably not notable; and he starred in Adventure in Satan's Canyon, which is actually listed in both the Film and TV tables in this article. It was one of Disney's weekly tv movies, one hour long, and doesn't have its own WP article (the series does, and that article explains that until 1976, one hour was the longest timeslot for Disney films on TV).

They are the only shows I can find that he definitely had significant roles in. His role in Peege, which is definitely a notable film, could be considered significant, as he was one of 6 main characters - but 4 other characters were much more central than he was. There do appear to be some other films he appeared in - Boxoffice says he had a role in The Carpetbaggers, but as he's not even listed in its cast on IMDB, it can't have been a significant part. He was going to voice Mowgli in The Jungle Book (1967), but his voice changed, so that is a significant role he did not end up playing.[41] So there is no evidence that he meets WP:NACTOR #1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I also don't find enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. (Child actors who have had significant roles in multiple notable films or tv shows, etc, would meet WP:NACTOR #1. I hope we have not "tended to delete child actor articles" about any who do meet that criterion!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NACTOR. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Lubbad85 (☎) 03:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if his recurring role on The Andy Griffith Show is deemed significant, then he would pass NACTOR when combined with the starring role of At the End of the Rainbow. I can't see how GNG is met at all with the sources currently in the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:02, 3 May 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.

[1] Pedersen, Erik (2019-04-23). "MTV Movie & TV Awards Has Its Host – Just Say Shazam!". Deadline. Retrieved 2019-04-23.

[2] Bell, Crystal (2019-04-23). "Zachary Levi Is Hosting The 2019 MTV Movie & TV Awards". MTV. Retrieved 2019-04-23.

[1]

[2]