Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 February	12 February >

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 redirect to List of intelligence agencies#Philippines. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence services of the Philippines[edit]

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

This is just a list of intelligence agencies in the Philippines with names on it. They are better off in the List of intelligence agencies page. Calling for a delete. Ominae (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Philippines per nom - don't see a reason not to have the redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Philippines, seems to be the best target for our readers --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Philippines makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 17:36, 18 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Rust Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per nom. STATic message me! 00:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its notability is questionable. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with others. Plus there is no secondary source. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of its references are via the Bleacher Report site; almost nothing beyond that. Perhaps why is has no referencing beyond a link to its own site. Britishfinance (talk) 17:38, 18 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arlington mayoral election[edit]

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

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

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

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

(Failed PROD) As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, events with little impact outside a local area should not be given separate articles. While Arlington is a somewhat large city, it is still a suburb that plays a tertiary role in its own metropolitan area. It's unlikely that the result of this local election will have much impact outside of DFW or Texas. Sounder Bruce 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author), though I will make it known that I am the article's creator. I made the article to turn a redlink blue in the Template:2019 United States elections navbox, so in the event of this article's deletion, I will call for the removal of the redlink for Arlington from the above template, along with cities like Colorado Springs (pop. ~450,000), Durham (pop. ~250,000), Greensboro (pop. ~300,000), Hialeah (pop. ~250,000), and West Palm Beach (pop ~110,000) whose mayoral articles would also most likely be put up for AfD. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those cities should definitely be removed. Any city that is not large enough to "clear the neighborhood" (borrowing from the Pluto debate) and claim a metropolitan area of its own is probably not important enough to warrant mayoral election articles. Sounder Bruce 02:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small city election fails WP:EVENT, WP:GNG because coverage is ROUTINE and there does not appear to be any national or even statewide attention being paid. One ROUTINE mention in the list of upcoming elections in tje regional daily Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and a story in the local "Arlington" section of the paper. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 400k is not a "small city". -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, while Arlington does have a high population, it is not a primary city in its metr area and is little more than a rather large suburb. 400K in Texas is different from 400K in Wyoming. Sounder Bruce 06:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't agree with the assumption that it has to be at the center of a metro area: Arlington's mayor goes on List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States right above New Orleans and below Minneapolis and governs a decent amount of changing land and population, even if near larger cities. However it is not evident that this election has received substantive media coverage for notability. The other links to smaller cities in the navbox should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the significant list is List of primary statistical areas of the United States. Despite the fact that Arlington is larger than Reykjavík, at 400,000 it is a small city and the fact that it is one of several cities in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex makes is less significant than if it was the largest in a province or country - despite the fact that the pop. of Arlington is larger than the pop. of the entire country of Iceland. What would make this notable is coverage in major publications outside the metro area. please do ping me to reconsider my opinion if you can find such.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayoral elections, like U.S. mayors, do not have inherent notability. Every mayoral election should receive coverage somewhere locally, but there's no coverage of this showing it has any impact outside the narrow area of Arlington, Texas. No prejudice on recreation if it becomes even regionally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Notability is not automatically established in local cases, and generally local (suburban) elections rarely go beyond local coverage or even routine coverage. Acnetj (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but article needs improving. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arlington is one of the 50 most populated cities in the United States, there mayoral election has notability.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is always a possibility. I suggest creating 2019 local elections in the United States. However, I may be biased because I will most likely be running in a local election this year in the United States. However, I am not suggesting my own inclusion in that potential article. PCN02WPS mentioned a few cities that would be pretty ripe for inclusion as well. Glad to have the chance to weigh in here. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:37, 19 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Sutherland[edit]

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

It appears that the most notable thing about this city-level politician is a trail that was named after them and that bears a plaque with a short biography. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, certainly doesn't make WP:NPOL.There don't appear to even be any verifiable sources reporting when (if?) Sutherland died. The previous AfD had a fairly strong consensus for deleting what appears to have been a similar article, but given the various minor claims to notability (the plaque and trail, being among the first women elected to a given position, etc.) I figured it was better to have a full deletion discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then redirect There are articles about her husband and her son. Merge the info over to there. BTW, I find a LOT of Betty Sutherland hits on Newspapers.com, but I'm not sure if they are the same person. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will acknowledge that I was the nominator the first time, but this article isn't much of an improvement. Serving on North York city council is not a notability freebie just because North York got amalgamated into Toronto 12 years after the end of her term — she does not get retroactively reclassified as a global city councillor for the purposes of NPOL #2, but still has to clear the same "special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors" test as any other run of the mill city councillor. Having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after her does not do that, however — at a guess, about half of everybody who'd ever served on any municipal council anywhere would get an instant inclusion freebie if having had a street or a park or a hiking trail or a public building named after them were all it took. Notability is not inherited, so having been related to more notable people doesn't help — and even her husband's notability is actually debatable, since he doesn't pass the global city test either. And there's not nearly enough substantive or reliable sourcing here to claim that she passes WP:GNG, either — five of the seven footnotes are either photographs or primary sources, so they're doing absolutely nothing to help make her notable at all, and one of the remaining two is just a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about Mel Lastman. That leaves just one source that's both reliable and substantively about her to count for something — but one source is not enough to singlehandedly GNG a suburban city councillor all by itself, because every municipal councillor everywhere can always show one source. So no, there's still not enough here to get her over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and User:Bearcat. While saving an historic 1865 building is noble the can of worms that every councilperson with local coverage deserving an article is too broad. Otr500 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL and GNG (in terms of a significant source doing an article on her). Britishfinance (talk) 17:42, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu enclave[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that refer to a Hindu Enclave. The entire article, beginning with the term, the definition (foreign? 10%?) and continuing into the collection of demographic statistics from various countries appears to be WP:OR. regentspark (comment) 21:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with RegentsPark. I did find the phrase "Hindu enclave" used in some places, e.g., [1], but not in any special sense that warrants a definition or extended treatment. I think this is a non-subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Definition - I do agree with the definition and the fact that it needs to be solidified. Possibly instead of the term foreign since that is fairly vague, change it to actual geographical locations(eg. Southeast Asia, Oceania, North America) would be a viable alternative. Instead of 10% I believe it would be better to morph it into a more general meaning(eg. significant), like how the pages "little india(location)" and "ethnic enclave" have a vague numerical baseline but have a generally agreed upon categorisation. On the discussion of deletion, there are quite a bit of articles etc. on the topic, making it similar to the page "shtetl" and the terms "muslim enclave" etc. I do believe it needs work and the inclusion of not just demographic statistics but also something like temples, heritage centres etc. within the page to make it not just a demographic term but actually an enclave. Work definitely needs to be done, I agree with you on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindian1947 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment. Fixed up page - Made some changes, added under construction tag. Looked at the mentions, it seems it has been talked about. Thoughts appreciated. Hindian1947 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the whole page is WP:OR. There needs to be a source that talks about "Hindu enclaves" in general, in order to make it viable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as massive WP:OR. There is an existing article India–Bangladesh enclaves which is a notable topic but the article in question lacks notability and is basically OR. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such term is a recognised entity as a simple googlesearch will show. While there may be Hindu majority areas in different parts of the world, congregating in one place, it is usually on the basis of cultural familiarity (e.g., in UK or in Australia and US, where linguistic trends can be observed). I'll comment on the creators record if called for, but for the moment there is no material content meriting such an article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice WP has a "Category:Hindu enclaves", and it contains several of the places listed in this article. Many of the towns that this article lists have WP articles that highlight their concentration of Hindus. The issue is that there is no defined term "Hindu enclave" (e.g. what % of the population needs to be Hindu to be an enclave), however, it would seem useful/interesting to a reader to know the places around the world which are not Hindu countries/cities but have material concentrations of Hindus. I think that if the author could produce a more objective list - E.g. cities/regions outside of India, Nepal and Mauritius where Hindus are over 10% of the population - then we could have a proper article. Britishfinance (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that that still constitutes WP:OR. Unless something is referred to as a "Hindu enclave" in RS, we have no business listing it as such. Whether it is referred in that way probably depends on a variety of local circumstances, and not simply a matter of calculating ethnic percentages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, many of these "enclaves" are likely to be Indian, or more generally South Asian. Categorising them as "Hindu enclaves" would be overlooking the broader aspect of the phenomenon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The use of the term "enclave" is wrong here. Just because a city in Canada has a high concentration of Hindus, it doesn't make it an enclave - E.g. the Hindus are not living in a specifically defined area, and controlling it, but completely surrounded by non-Hindus (the classic meaning of an Enclaves). However with a better title E.g. List of Hindu communities in non-Hindu nations (or something better), it could work. Again, I come back to the point that I would be interested to find places outside of India that have high Hindu concentrations. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shore City Magicians Club[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced article. I am unable to find any sources that deal with this club indepth. None of the sources suggested at the first AFD seem retrievable. The Club seems to have been inactive since 2013 - see here, for example. Most of the article is about being a venue for two editions of the New Zealand International Magicians Convention. That convention looks possibly notable, and could have been a redirect target, but it has no page. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this mirror? has some more refs [2] (all quite bad). Could find a few mentions that it existed, nothing notable. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Nothing notable about this club to be found other than primary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bit of a struggle to even find passing references in RS to prove existance (but they are there). However, there are no RS of any quality that would show "notability" of this subject - E.g. no significant RS with an article, independent book, chapter in independent book, tv review, or other, on this specific subject. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 17 February 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 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho. Consensus is against keeping this but I do think the person's name is a plausible search term. See WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mauk[edit]

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

There are several reasons to have this article removed from Wikipedia:

Fails WP:GNG. A quick search turned up just about nothing, aside from his current occupation as an attorney in Idaho's capital, Boise. There are no sources from any significant national publications except CNN, although that is only a passing name mention for an election he took part in and ultimately lost.
Fails WP:NLAWYER. Yes, he was an attorney who represented Claude Dallas, a murderer in Idaho. But, NLAWYER does not explicitly say that this makes one notable.
Fails WP:NPOL.

Although he was selected to serve as Chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party, I couldn't find any instance of him doing something that made any national headlines. Idaho Democrats have always been the minority party in the state so this equates to nothing.
Moreover, in 1998, he was a Democratic candidate for Senate, but failed, and has therefore never been an elected politician.
As we have seen with failed Congressional nominees in past AfDs, they are not inherently notable solely for losing an election. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, as examples of failed candidates for public office who have had their articles deleted (many of which were nominated by me).

In the event of a redirect, I recommend it to either the 1998 Senate election that he was a nominee in or Claude Dallas, though he is only mentioned in the former and not the latter. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It sounds like he litigated at least two widely-publicized cases, and he was a major party (Democrat) nominee for a Senate seat. (Side note: LAWYER is a failed policy and not authoritative.) I think it's a keep, but not a strong keep. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cosmic Sans: it's okay to lean keep here, but I already rebuked the fact that being a Senate nominee does not contribute to notability per any guideline. unless there's something here that I am missing, it seems that was pointed out for no reason. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally agree that being a Senate nominee, in itself, isn't enough. But when you couple that with some high-profile cases, I think it's enough to just limbo under the wire. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho, doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a politician or a lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office, even major party ones, are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates per se — if he doesn't win the election and thereby hold a notable political office, then he needs to show preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him an article anyway. But of the two "high-profile" cases, one is referenced only to a law blog and the other is referenced to a single wire service article in a smalltown newspaper, which means that this isn't showing anything like enough coverage to make him a notable lawyer — if this were all it took, we'd probably have to keep an article about almost every single lawyer who exists at all. So if somebody with much better access to archived US media coverage than I've got could salvage the article with a lot more quality sourcing, that might change things, but these sources aren't enough and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think our community should find some consistency in when (or why) a redirect to an election page is preferable to a straight deletion for a candidate which lost their election. Should it depend on the type of office sought (i.e. we would create a redirect for all federal election and province/statewide executive races), or only for candidates who make a general election, or some other criteria? --Enos733 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Reply to @Enos733: Would you be interested in redirecting this instead to the Idaho Democratic Party article, given that Mauk was the party chair? ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No - the redirect target of 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho is more appropriate. My comment is more about trying to develop a more consistent standard of whether a failed candidate for a national legislature should be closed as a "redirect" or "delete." My sense is that in general, a the presumption for a candidate on the general election ballot for a national legislature (or one who has lost), and doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNP or WP:NPOL should be closed as a redirect, rather than deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no blanket rule that would apply exactly the same way to all people. Everybody who ever stood as a candidate for anything isn't always plausible enough as a search term to warrant a redirect at all, and sometimes a redirect would end up sitting on top of somebody else with the same name and a stronger claim of standalone notability, and sometimes the candidate has run for office multiple times in different elections and thus left us with an WP:XY problem — so it really has to be taken case by case, rather than having a blanket rule across the board.
As well, "delete" and "redirect" aren't actually mutually exclusive results in the first place: even where an AFD comes down on the redirect side, it's still usually more appropriate to delete the existing article and then recreate a new redirect than it is to leave the article's entire edit history sitting behind the redirect waiting for a revert-warrior to flout the consensus, and even where an AFD comes down as a delete, that doesn't forbid anybody from recreating a new redirect after deletion either. So this doesn't really create a major crisis that requires hyperregulation — the KISS principle applies here, and taking it case by case is fine. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point (especially for XY redirects). That said, I would think for an international audience, running for a national office would generally be the most likely reason why someone is searching for a subject. --Enos733 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GLLI Translated YA Book Prize[edit]

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

Article about a new literary award, not properly referenced as notable. As always, every literary award on earth is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test is the reception of enough reliable source media coverage about the award to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. But apart from one post to a publishing industry PR blog, the only other reference here is the award's own self-published content about itself, and there's no evidence of real coverage in real media being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing WP:ORGDEPTH. I can't imagine any awards being notable their first year, at best it's WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No RS for WP:GNG and a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Britishfinance (talk) 18:00, 18 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRADAN[edit]

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

This article has been around for more than twelve years but it still looks like an un-wikified promotional piece. Notability not properly established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy per WP:G12. I scrubbed a large copyvio taken from a 2007 paper that had seemingly been in place for about 11 years. This needs blowing up and starting over, if at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may deserve an article, but someone will have to write a suitable one without promotionalism and copyvio, and better sourced. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and comments above. Britishfinance (talk) 17:30, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive Cash[edit]

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

no real coverage in reliable sources, mostly fluff, pr and non-rs. fails NCORP/GNG Praxidicae (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Hi there! Thank you for the review. I'll love to understand a bit more about why the sources of this article are considered PR or puff pieces, in reference to this line "no real coverage in reliable sources, mostly fluff, pr and non-rs"

The company doesn't seem to have published anything on a PR newswire, so I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like PR
The fluff part is also unfair, see the LendEDU article, which is actually quite harsh on the product.
Some notes about these publishers and their reputation below with relevant citations:

LendEDU: "LendEDU is a marketplace for private student loans, student loan refinancing, credit cards, and personal loans - among other financial products. LendEDU has been featured and mentioned on a variety of websites including TechCrunch, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg, NPR, CBS News, Fox News, Business Insider, Yahoo! Finance, Forbes, Huffington Post, Inc., and many more. LendEDU is a graduate of the Iowa Startup Accelerator and Y Combinator." [3]

Northwester Business Review: "We’re Northwestern's premier business publication, and are one of the only undergraduate-run business publications in the country."[4], [5]

The Tab: "The Tab is a site covering youth culture and student culture, run by journalists who like being first." [6] The Tab has been featured in the New York Times and the Guardian [7], [8]

I'll love to hear more from you! Thank you. Shirley McGordon (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (PST)

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Blackguard 06:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NCORP. This isn't really the place for a review of an article (other than to discuss whether or not it should be kept), or pointers on how to write one. I recommend the helpful page WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Ifnord (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In terms of notbility of "Thrive Cash", there is almost nothing; fails NCORP. Also very (very) promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 18:09, 18 February 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 Finnair. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnaviation[edit]

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

No third party coverage. Article relies on a single reference.

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline that a clearly been in operation running scheduled services for nearly twenty years is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always tricky to find sources online for something that was swallowed by another company in 1993, but the Finnish article has a list of sources of varying quality (some of them say very little). I've added a reference to a Swedish article from the 90s I found in the w:sv:Mediearkivet. w:fi:Finna lists addition material, such as Arja Vartia's Finnaviation poronsarvikauteen and Jukka Hoffrén's Se kolmas kotimainen : Finnaviation. Enough to convince me that this passes GNG. /Julle (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnair. From what I see - [9][10] - this was never really an independent standalone company - it was created in 1979 as a Finnair subsidary for domestic flights, and was eventually folded back into Finnair. I think this is best handled in Finnair itself (with a redirect there).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnair seems to have held 60% of the stock, not owned it outright, though? Also, I think this is the best place to write briefly about Lentohuolto/Finnwings and Nordair, which might be rather out of place in the Finnair article? /Julle (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initially 60% (in 79), then owned it outright ([11] - "wholly owned subsidiary"), then folded it into Finnair. In any event - Finnair held a controlling stake throughout this company's existence - And Finnaviation was created to further Finnair's business - as evident in this timeline entry on Finnair in 1979. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnwings - AFAICT - had a longer history and independent existence - I don't think it should be covered in this article. An article on Finnaviation could possibly be plausible (though I mainly see it covered as past of Finnair) - however the present article is rather brief and definitely merge-able. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Icewhiz. Not notable for stand-alone article, but it certainly could be included somehwere within Finnair. However, this debate should be closed pretty soon and/or relisted. Yup... so.. that's it for me here. (gosh, I am so awkward at voting.) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnair. I would hate to lose this entirely; I'm totally amused by the idea of an airline flying a C-152, and it would be a shame to lose that little bit of aviation trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 19 February 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. Near unanimous agreement that this passes WP:GNG. Several third-party reliable sources found. Closed. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AB Aerotransport[edit]

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

Cannot find third-party coverage for the airline. The article has been unsourced since 2009.

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a historic airline that is clearly an important part of the history of Swedish aviation is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Swedish article mentions several sources that seem very reasonable, like Utredning om AB Aerotransport, a 140 pages government report about ABA from 1947, and the 20 pages chapter Från Junkers till Cloudmaster : ABA fyller 70! in Flyg (Vällingby) from 1994. I don't have immediate access to these, as they're printed publications, but I've started adding basic referencing using Lars Fältings 1995 article Högtflygande planer i debatten om Arlanda 1946 which presents the basic outlines of the history of ABA. The Swedish article mentions other sources. There seems to be more than enough to satisfy our standards. /Julle (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well writen, poorly sourced article, on a notable topic, added some refs. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep. Major flag carrier that was merged into SAS on SAS's creation. A cursory google-books search shows plenty of possible sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, looks to me to be passing mentions --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize we're discussing the flag carrier (the main airliner) of Sweden for 20 some odd years? (prior to being merged to SAS - the pan-Scandinavian airline). There are lots of sources (either with the full name, or ABA). Yes - many of them are passing (as with any company) - however I'm fairly certain some of them are in depth. Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is some third-party coverage, all from GBooks; they're all snippet views, so it's difficult to discern the depth of coverage in them: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the various sources mentioned above, I believe WP:GNG is satisfied. Further, in principle, being the flag carrier of Sweden and later merging into SAS makes the airline an important and relevant part of Swedish aviation history. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:46, 13 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Peckham[edit]

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

Promotional stub for a non-notable tv presenter. The sole reference for this article is nowhere near being a WP:RS; Google search turns of nothing of any value, mostly just resumes, Wikipedia mirrors and other people with the same name. PC78 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. When a UK media-BLP throws up virtually no RS in any UK media (even 2nd tier papers), it is a strong fail. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Iyare[edit]

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

Unsourced article for a non-notable radio duo. Google search turns up nothing of value for this pair, a few mentions by name of course but nothing that would satisfy WP:NOTE or WP:VERIFY. No opinion on the independent notability of Iyare Igiehon, but there's really no need for a separate article. PC78 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would in theory help to militate against Wikipedia's systematic bias if this article were kept, but I agree that sources are necessary. This is a period I don't look back on fondly, full of ghettoisation and reaction, and I fear a lack of sources would be a result of that. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I really see how systematic bias applies here... PC78 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources are cited and nothing that would satisfy guidelines has been found. Peter James (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. ANother UK media-BLP that throws up virtually no RS in any UK media (even 2nd tier papers); a strong fail. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Displacements[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Appears to be mostly the creation by a number of SPAs (one of which has the username "The displacements") as promotional material for the group. About the only source available online is this interview with their local BBC station [17] which is almost entirely primary material answering trivia questions. It's quite likely that they were featured on national BBC radio programmes as claimed, but almost certainly as one-off plays. The NME review as well is likely to be as part of the magazine's weekly feature spotlighting two or three upcoming bands – if we included every band featured as the "next big thing" in the music press, we'd have hundreds of articles on barely notable bands – and the review can't be verified at present. The group doesn't appear to have released any further records other than the three singles mentioned in the article, all of which were limited releases, so they sold a maximum of 4000 singles during their entire career. The band seems to have split up several years ago, so further reliable sources are unlikely to appear. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like most bands on their level who were briefly hyped during that period, their notability was marginal even at the time and non-existent since. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two reviews of one of their singles (NME, Manchester Evening News) but nothing about the band; interviews are not always reliable, or evidence of notability. Peter James (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of strong, independent coverage as required by WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 21:24, 18 February 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 Ukraine. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Shestopalova[edit]

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

at best BLP1E but fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Ukraine; functional search term, functional WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delte not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's not enough for her to have an individual article, but she's already mentioned at Miss Ukraine. This also looks like WP:BLP1E to me.Sandals1 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Miss Ukraine where sole claim to notability lies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 13 February 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 Ukraine. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriia Poloz[edit]

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

BLP1E and fails GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Ukraine, where the subject is listed; valid search term, WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Ukraine as per North America.---Richie Campbell (talk) 04:25, 19 February 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) DannyS712 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edythe Lewis[edit]

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

Biography of a person with no strong notability claim and no quality sourcing. Neither of her notability claims, being the first black female disc jockey in Dayton, Ohio and later serving on Dayton's city council, are "inherently" notable for the purposes of securing inclusion in Wikipedia — but the only reference being cited here at all is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about Dayton's LGBTQ Pride parade, which is nowhere near enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG. Neither single-market local DJs nor city councillors are automatically presumed notable just because they exist, and people are still not handed an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they claim to have been the first member of an equity group to accomplish an otherwise non-notable thing — but nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to get her over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. Another one I'm not sure about. Why are you doing this to me hahaha...okay, she's in the Dayton Area Broadcasters Hall of Fame. First black woman to host a radio show in Dayton. I'll add those, but I'm not ready to !vote. valereee (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are way too many possible firsts for any she has to propel her to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added sources from news outside of Dayton. She passes GNG with what I have and I'd like to see Valereee's sources, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of more news sources by Megalibrarygirl I'd say she passes GNG. Lirazelf (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Megalibrarygirl please explain how their added sources make it pass GNG? I just don't see significant coverage in large papers (The Cincinnati Enquirer source would work, but as far as I can see, it is only a passing mention. I just don't see any of the other sources (most of the others local to Dayton, or have small circulation) that make it pass. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix ping Megalibrarygirl Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: For one thing, Dayton's already a pretty big Ohio town: It's the 6th largest city in Ohio and the 4th largest Metropolitan area in Ohio. So we're already talking about coverage in large newspapers. However, she was also noticed by other Ohio papers and one of the sources is AP which shows that there was an interest in syndicating that particular news source about her. Based on what's in the article and what I wrote above, I believe she passes GNG. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a former Daytonian, I have to chime in here -- at the time Lewis was locally notable, Dayton was a much larger city relatively than it is now. It was a rust belt town, so these days it's much smaller, but back then Dayton was an important industrial center. The Dayton Daily News was not an insignificant paper.valereee (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950 census, Dayton was the 44th largest US city. In the 2010 census, Cleveland was 45th and Dayton had lost over 40% of its peak population and was well outside the top 100. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl has convinced me. Keep Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the new addition of sources on the article now, it does passes for WP:GNG Kaizenify (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Nice expansion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current state it clearly passes GNG. I'd love to know what standard Eddie891 is talking about applying when they refer to "large papers" - could you link to something? She merited a bylined obit in Dayton Daily News (footnote 2). Done. --Krelnik (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krelnik: maybe you missed it, but I voted keep and in fact any questions (not concerns) I had were answered. So I wasn't referring to anything, in the end. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 17 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doe test[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The only link to this page on Wikipedia is a See Also section, with little context to the rest of the article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The title which covers this subject isn't especially notable. Nor, in honesty, would it seem to be the correct/common title anyway (The "DOE Test" would seem to be more commonly called the "CVRT Test" for some time). However it is known, the subject can easily be covered under another title (perhaps as a section under the Road Safety Authority article. As the agency which oversees the commercial vehicle testing regime). Otherwise the subject wouldn't seem to need its own article/title. (If there is any salvagable content, then a summary of it could be moved/addressed in the RSA article. ANd this title and its content deleted. A redirect would seem unnecessary). Guliolopez (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After over a decade, article remains unreferenced. The term is no longer in use and the unreferenced content is also out of date. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:16, 18 February 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 delete. G11 : Unambiguous Advertising (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Devamsam[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Cinematographers generally need more independent sources than working on a few films to be considered notable. Ajf773 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily per WP:CSD#G11 {{db-g11}} as blatant spam. – Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the creator was just blocked for repeatedly submitting copyvio. Makes me wonder about this page but let's tag it G11 Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 16 February 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. Leaning keep. And, I would like some less assumption of bad faith. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring drones[edit]

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

This page fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Specifically:

1) There is no indication of notability of the topic as a list (WP:LISTN). In discussion on the subject talk page numerous articles were provided discussing drones in film (e.g., 1 2 3 4). Whilst these might support an article on the subject of drones in film (i.e., the cultural phenomenon) per se, they do not provide any consistent list inclusion criteria (required per WP:LSC or actually take the form of a list. Typically they each discuss 2-3 films that feature drones of various kinds without providing anything from which a list could meaningfully be constructed. The absence of any list inclusion criteria has caused the addition of many films which clearly do not actually include drones in any meaningful way (e.g., Back To The Future II).

2) This is an indiscriminate collection of trivia and as such fails WP:NOT.

I found nothing in my WP:BEFORE that can rescue the page. I suppose re-factoring the page as a category might be defensible, if it could be shown that this is an enduring cultural phenomenon, however this would require evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject, which I did not find. As it is, though I'm not a fan of randomly labelling stuff 'Cruft', this is pure Listcruft. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it satisfies WP:NOTESAL, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." The nominator admits that sources exist to support that these films have been discussed as a group or set, as evidenced by their links. More sources can be found. The nominator is making up their own special rule that such discussion must "actually take for the form of a list". Furthermore, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." However, it is absolutely possible to have a discussion about more stringent list inclusion criteria like at List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so the nominator's insistence of deleting this article without having such a discussion violates WP:BEFORE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another such source. The New York Times has an article here headlined, "'Eye in the Sky' and 'National Bird' Train Sights on Warfare by Remote Control", also mentioning in addition to these headlined film titles, The Bourne Legacy and Good Kill.

I also found this, the journal Defense & Security Analysis having an article, "Cinema, drone warfare and the framing of counter-terrorism". Here is the abstract: "The study of the cinematic representation is extremely useful in framing of counter-terrorism policies, whether in the US or elsewhere. This paper examines cinema’s interest in drone warfare as well as the lives and personalities of drone pilots. It argues that drone warfare suffers a considerable image problem that has been brought out in several recent features and it is unlikely that any major cinematic myth of drone warfare will easily develop, certainly in comparison to myths concerning special forces and special operations."

So this is even more evidence that this list meets WP:NOTESAL. There is no reason to delete the article outright. If you want to have stricter criteria, then that's completely acceptable to discuss on the talk page. It does not belong at WP:AFD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 titles is not a "list" or even really a group, nor do these articles provide list-inclusion criteria (WP:LSC) which is a necessary part of substantiating the notability/verifiability of a list. At most, these articles might provide basis for an article about the cultural phenomenon of drones in movies, but then there would have to be evidence of sustained coverage. As for the requirement of having a discussion, this was done on the talk page and is being done here. Finally (and I forgot to mention this) there is a strong verifiability issue with nearly ever listing on the page (e.g., what is the source for Back to the Future II including a drone? The reference only states that is features "drone-like technology") FOARP (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources talk about drones in films as a group or set. They're not saying "this one other film", they're writing broadly and include multiple films. This list simply combines all groups or sets that have been discussed to date and adds more. You say that there is room for improvement, so it is unnecessary to engage in deletion per WP:BEFORE. You also say that a non-deletion discussion "is being done here", but it's hard to have that discussion when the thrust of this nomination is to wipe the topic off Wikipedia completely. What about withdrawing this nomination and starting a discussion on the talk page to implement certain inclusion criteria? Something like Back to the Future Part II does not have to stay, depending on the criteria. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list appears to be the result of going through movie reviews and listing every single one that has the word "drone" in it (see, e.g., the support for three randomly-selected items on the list here: 1 2 3 ). There is no sign that there is an actual grouping of films being dealt with here. The references provided do not support this topic as a list, something that requires list inclusion criteria - specifically, what belongs on the list and what does not. Without that all you've got here is a list compiled from original research. EDIT: this is basically like an "In Popular Culture" section for drones. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You listed multiple sources in your nomination that acknowledge drones in films have been discussed as a group or set. I've also added that per WP:NOTESAL, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." If you think the inclusion criteria is too loose, then propose stricter criteria instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in pursuing complete deletion of this topic. Again, I ask, what about withdrawing the nomination and starting a discussion to cull the list based on specified criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about first actually providing evidence that there are, or could ever be, verifiable list inclusion criteria provided in independent, reliable sources (required per WP:LSC) for this list? My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Without that you end up with what you've got - a list of films that feature a drone in any scene, regardless of what the film is actually about. It's basically this but for drones. You have to have the "specified criteria" before you have the list. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can we have a discussion about inclusion criteria if you won't withdraw for even a short time your nomination to unilaterally delete this? To use an example, with List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, discussion led to listing only films that have a critics' consensus or at least 20 reviews. When it comes to this kind of topic, there will be a range of the common topics' relevance to the film. The listings here are simple in providing one citation per film. For some films, maybe there is only one citation at all. For others, maybe drones have been repeatedly mentioned in reviews, and that would give such a listing more weight. Or if a film is mentioned in a non-review and/or retrospective source, it would warrant more inclusion. There are a variety of ways we could go about it. I have no issue with shortening the list, but I oppose its complete deletion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source here further validating the group/set: "Such is the premise of Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky, Andrew Niccol’s Good Kill, and Rick Rosenthal’s Drones... National Bird is not the first muckraking documentary on Washington’s drone wars. Robert Greenwald’s Unmanned, Tonje Schei’s Drone, and Madiha Tahrir’s Wounds of Waziristan have already shone much-needed light on how drone warfare really works." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD is not a unilateral process - this article will not be deleted simply because I nominated it, but only as the result of a consensus. List inclusion criteria have to be sourced in independent, reliable sources. They cannot simply be decided here through original research. Realistically speaking this means you need sources that list movies of this type stating why they're included, not merely discuss a few of them. The reason why list inclusion criteria are important is that it is required to prevent trivia lists being created out of original research. The sources you've provided do not produce any real criteria for forming a list on this subject, for example the source that lists what it describes as "muckraking documentar[ies] on Washington’s drone wars" would not support creating a list of films about drones, but instead a list of documentaries about drone warfare (which is not what this is). FOARP (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By nominating the article for deletion and refusing to withdraw, per WP:BEFORE, your essential stance is that the article cannot at all be improved rather than deleted. So because this, it is hard to assume good faith in discussing any kind of list inclusion criteria with you. This is evidenced by your dismissal of the article by The Nation that names seven films related to drones. If you feel that documentaries need to be strongly delineated from narrative films, then why not two distinct sections under the same broad scope of films featuring drones? You're saying that cannot and should not be done? That there cannot be an article in any sense related to films and drones? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what I feel or don't feel. This is about what is supported by the references. There is no supported list inclusion criteria for this list (required per WP:LSC), which is why it is how it is - a list of trivia. Your saying that you think the nation supports a list of documentaries about drone warfare, but that's clearly not what this list is. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erik's demonstration that drone films have been discussed as a set or group in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear criteria for inclusion makes this liable to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fixate on every small appearance of a drone in every film ever made, which is unencyclopedic. List of films about drones would probably be an actual, notable topic to base a list on. Otherwise, the discussion about drones in films in reliable sources can be relocated to the article about drones, or perhaps an article about drones in fiction written in prose._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is a notable topic for a list but sharpen the criteria to films that are mainly about drones rather than any with a brief inclusion of drones because with the increasing proliferation of drone use there will be a vast number of films including drones except period pieces, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NOTESAL, there is "no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists". E.g. "List of drones" is a WP topic, and "List of films" is a WP topic, but there is no concenus on whether "List of films featuring drones" is a topic. On the basis that this is a decently constructed list and referenced (and interesting), I would keep it. I would like even more if the definition was tightened up, but I can live with this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:16, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, Dublin[edit]

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

fail WP:GNG, promo. The Banner talk 10:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very poor evidence of notability. I looked for independent secondary sources and found only 3 at all likely ones out of the 18 (!), two of which are 404 not found — not sure what to do with those — and the third an article in The Irish Sun which was basically an interview with a representative of JFCJ. Pretty dubious as an independent source. If by some quirk it's kept, the section "Projects" (=about 85% of the article) certainly needs removing. Bishonen | talk 11:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent reliable sources found and article's tone is questionable. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jzsj (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Making sentences out of routine and trivial mentions does not transubstantiate the source material into significant coverage. The article subject lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources, and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Bakazaka (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I find it hard to believe that a ministry with 6 staff manages to be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MattLongCT, that isn't necessary, as admins sweep through AfD regularly. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 18 February 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. Tone 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dipali Goenka[edit]

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

Seems an unremarkable businessperson. Cannot see how this passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Someguy1221 who appears to be the one who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Thought she might be part of the world economic forum but it seems to only a forum video. Seems to be only a director of a regional company. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious fail of WP:NBIO GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aerocancun[edit]

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

Following the normal checks I could't confirm notability for Aerocancun as a company or general notability that would justify to keep this article. Maybe a sentence about the company could be included in some aviation-history page / overview of avation companies in Mexico / ...?! Ruhri Jörg 13:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could clearly do with improving but any airline that operated flights and was allocated an ICAO code is noteworthy for an article, particularly with a 300-seat aircraft, so a pretty serious operation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 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 Lil Scrappy discography. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grustle[edit]

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

Non notable album that fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Coverage about the album is routine like the references 1 and 2 in the article (every other reference is a primary), the album actually did not chart on Billboard like the article says.

On Billboard 200 https://www.billboard.com/music/lil-scrappy/chart-history/billboard-200 only The King of Crunk & BME Recordings Present: Trillville & Lil Scrappy and Bred 2 Die Born 2 Live charted, while in Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums https://www.billboard.com/music/lil-scrappy/chart-history/r-b-hip-hop-albums besides the 2 albums I mentioned, Prince of the South charted only. Lil Scrappy#2009–2012: Tha GruStle has more than enough info in itself to be covered there and I don't think it warrants an article on it's own.

WP:BEFORE brought up these:

1) http://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/161107445.html/ a passing mention of the album, more about the artist's previous albums
2) http://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/reviews/2012/06/lil-scrappy-the-grustle-2/ I guess this passes?
3) https://rollingout.com/2012/06/21/album-review-lil-scrappy-the-grustle/ Appears to be an unreliable source, no editorial policy from what I can see. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Lil Scrappy discography - I am not sure the album is notable enough for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Lil Scrappy discography is the best solution, IMO.TH1980 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 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. There appears to be a rough consensus that there is insufficient coverage of the depth required among RS sources to establish notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wellemeyer[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject of this article appears to fail our notability requirements outlined at WP:BASIC. Most of the sources (which tend towards press releases anyways) provided do not even mention Wellemeyer, and those that do mention him only in passing - he does not inherit notability from the subjects of those articles. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up anything better.

Further, this article still reads like a resumee 8 years after its creation. Even if the subject were found notable, WP:TNT applies. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are absolutely correct with the outdated references, I will work with some people down here and see if we can get it updated. There is a lot of news about what he is doing in Antigua and Barbuda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.82.132 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you review WP:SHAREDACCOUNT and WP:COI, and clarify who "we" is? VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I should have clarified that. I live in Antigua in the West Indies, and I run a IT integrator. I met Mr. Wellemeyer at a fundraiser a couple of years ago and know about some of the technology he developed in hosted PBX technologies, but I don't know him personally. He also built a resort here in Antigua. By "We" I mean by me and wife who is an English major and much better at writing and research than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.82.132 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I updated a bunch of the media citations, there are quite a bit more that I will do as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.82.132 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just stumbled across this while doing a presentation on the history of VoIP. Wellemeyer pretty much invented the hosted PBX business. In full disclosure, I used to work in the NOC at Teledvance, and I doubt he remembers who I am (maybe he does) but we essentially made the commercial VoIP industry as it exists today. We (he) essentially created the business of hosted IP telephony.

I went through the citations and they all seem to be active from what I can tell. I didn't know about a lot of the other stuff he has done since Teledvance and I am no expert on Wikipedia requirements but from a technology perspective it would seem to me that anyone who starts a technology from scratch and sells it for $120m, and has international development projects where he is doing press conferences with the Prime Minister of foreign countries, qualifies for a Wikipedia page. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.116.19 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admirable professional accomplishments aside, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess maybe from a United States perspective there are more notable people, but certainly from an Antigua and Barbuda perspective he is quite important. I went through and updated the citations, I think if you take the time to read the articles you will agree he is quite notable on a number of fronts. Much more than typical business accomplishments 208.83.82.132 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — 208.83.82.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I’m sorry but I respectfully disagree. I believe this guy does meet the meet WP:BIO notability requirements and a lot of that which he has done with wireless connectivity and VoIP is very notable. Not sure if you went through and read the articles but the notability is confirmed by other very reliable ie. Yankee Group as well. 96.31.200.13 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 96.31.200.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I'd also like to note that IP's @96.31.200.13 and @208.83.82.132 have never edited outside the subject of this article and their votes could very well be a case of WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, you are absolutely correct. I have never participated in a conversation in Wikipedia and have never been part of any of the discussions as I have never had the need to. I stumbled across the “Deletion” of the article when I went to reference some information on the new resort opened here and I had a print out of the former Wikipedia article that no longer existed. I am not sure how many people that are normal Wikipedia editors are familiar with the work what Wellemeyer has done in the IT industry and certainly not on the Island of Antigua. I was not aware that I had to be a normal editor to provide feedback on an article. I explained my interest in the article when I made my first comment and while I don’t know him personally, I would like to think it is important that his life’s work is not diminished. Note per the comment on WP:SOCK, I described this to VQuakr above on my first comment.

I read the WP:GNG in detail and I have to disagree. WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are 23 citations all to external publications. There are a large number of additional publications, but those citations were removed as some were duplicates of the same information. Should these be added back in? I am happy to do so if that is appropriate. I am not sure where the concept of having too many citations for a particular statement comes in. Of the 23 sources, 21 of them are “secondary sources” and meet the “reliability” requirement as they are major independent news organizations including Gannett, the Courier Journal, Crunchbase, American City Business Journals, the Wall Street Journal and the two main news sources here in Antigua and Barbuda ABS-News and The Antigua Observer. They also include major IT publications CRN, TMC and Crunchbase. Additionally, only 2 of the sources could be considered primary as they are press releases and information from wire services. I would encourage you to look at and read the source material in its entirety, I have learned a lot more about him over the last couple of weeks and I think you will find the article far exceeds WP:GNG requirements. 208.83.82.132 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, spamming references does not help establish notability, and can lead into WP:TNT territory which I mentioned in this nomination. Think quality, not quantity. Can you link the best 3 sources that discuss Wellemeyer in detail? And refs, regardless of reliability, that merely mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks VQuakr I just went through and updated all of the references, no wonder no one could see the sources/citations they were non-existent, I had added some additional a couple weeks ago but didn't go back to look at the old ones, many of which for some reason no longer pointed anywhere. I went through and updated them all manually. I think I did it correctly and I did not duplicate them when it was the same or similar content simply republished at another source. 208.83.82.132 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok here goes nothing. This is my first real discussion based on the WP:GUIDELINES so take it easy on me. Per your request VQuakr I have assembled the most important references and I am confident these exceed the notability requirements outlined in WP:BASIC

An overall summary biography can be found published in "Bloomberg Executive Profile". Bloomberg WP:RS by S&P Global is Company proxy information which includes Executive Profile information on directors and officers of large public and private companies. This summarizes the companies Wellemeyer founded and explains how he is credited with “creating the concept behind a centralized delivery of PBX services”

Even though notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP as per WP:SUSTAINED his first article in a WP:RS WP:IIS The Courier-Journal, appeared on March 16, 1991 (28 years ago) when he was a Senior in High School. In August of the same year, a second feature article WP:RS WP:IIS was written in Home Office Computing Magazine. The technology that he developed was exhibited at the Consumer Electronics Show which typically hosts the premier new products and technologies in the consumer electronics industry (Wellemeyer was 18 years old at the time)

The articles in major independent publications continued through his career WP:SUSTAINED, covering his “inventions” and first to market technologies. In 1996 with “High-tech firm invents wireless technology for Internet access” Rick Redding, an WP:RS WP:IIS independent feature writer for American City Business Journals details Wellemeyer’s creation of the wireless technology and sourced additional, independent industry experts, including Roberta Wiggins, director of wireless mobile communications at the Yankee Group a Boston-based marketing research group said, “no one in the industry has combined the high bandwidth available through ViperLink with wireless technology. Some leading computer vendors have plans in development," she said. "What is available has much lower speed." There are other articles that verify the importance of his technology, but the best is probably the fact that his technology was acquired by Microsoft Co-founder Paul Allen

In 2005 Business Wire in a Press Release WP:PRIMARY from the Chicago based VC, MK Capital announced Wellemeyer had raised $15 Million in funding. In April 2009, Mark Miller of Enterprise Networking a Ziff Davis publication details the significance of Wellemeyer’s Smoothstone company in Part 5 of a technical article on Hosted IP PBX Services and credits the company as being the first Managed VoIP services company in the US (noting they don’t discuss Wellemeyer in this article they do discuss the company and the unique technology he developed). In 2011, there were many major WP:RS [WP:IIS]] that announced the sale of Smoothstone to West Corp. for $120 million and many articles featuring (and picturing) Wellemeyer.

In January 2017, Luxury Lifestyles Magazine wrote a feature article on Awakening Antigua Northern Soul featured Wellemeyer and his $120 Million oceanfront Development here in Antigua. In addition, the story complete with the discovery, design and acquisition of the project was covered in detail by both the Antiguan Observer and the Antigua Barbuda TV-10. Additionally, his press conference with our Prime Minister is televised and archived online.

In addition to these direct articles there are some that it appears at one point existed online, but now 20-25 years later, the former links were no longer functioning. While most of these have been removed, in reality under WP:SOURCEACCESS they do not need to be available online to be included as a source.

There are dozens of additional articles where Wellemeyer is not the main topic of the article, but is more than a trivial mention, thus meeting the guidelines of WP:SIGCOV however, many of these articles were professional opinions and interviews on a host of technical topics not on Wellemeyer himself. Another group of articles chronical issues with the development(s) in Antigua and while they don’t cover article in full they are much more than a trivial mention WP:BASIC.

In summary, after studying all the guidelines in terms WP:BIO requirements, now that the citations are updated appropriately, the article more than meets the WP:GNG requirements. 208.83.82.132 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC). FYI I now have a Wikipedia Account Dmastic0101 (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There are almost no sources that meet WP's GNG criteria of a significant independent RS "on this subject". There is no article, independent book (or chapter of a book), tv, or other media that ran a piece "dedicated" to the subject. The references quoted in his article are mostly the only ones available, and the few that actually mention his name are either passing references ([18]) or are linked to the sale of his company (which had 120 employees [19]). His claims of notability around technology development are junk, and he appears nowhere in any research of technology books, technology research articles etc. in his area. He simply took existing tech to sell voicemail systems to local businesses in his area (why most of the references to his company are localised). It is not even clear how much money he made personally from the sale of his business as investors funded it. Any references to him in real estate are passing references regarding construction projects in low-grade RS, but again, nothing on him as a notable figure. It is not possible to even make a "glass half full" case that could make WP GNG. He is just not notable. Very good spot by VQuakr. Based on the above WP:SOCKs, I'm guessing we will be seeing a 2nd AfD for this subject, so it is worth doing this AfD properly as record. Britishfinance (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Britishfinance I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I am not sure if you are seeing the same citations and talking about the same person or not. Let me take each one of your statements and respond accordingly.

You state there are almost no sources that meet WP's GNG criteria of a significant independent RS "on this subject".

This is simply untrue. The sources defined in WP:GNG as WP:RS is very clear, “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” I will say the two articles you referenced are some of the weakest sources in the articles.

The sources of the citations are:

The Courier Journal, founded in 1826 is the largest news organization in Kentucky, the paper is the 48th-largest daily paper in the U.S. It has received 9 Pulitzer Prizes and is currently owned by the Gannett Company.

Bloomberg Executive Profile, with information provided by S&P Global Intelligence. S&P Global Intelligence is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in New York City. Its primary areas of business are financial information and analytics and is the majority owner of the S&P Dow Jones Indices.

American Cities Business Journals, founded in 1985 is an American newspaper chain based in Charlotte, North Carolina. ACBJ publishes under 6 brands, which reach 4 million readers and has 1900 employees.

You further state, "The references quoted in his article are mostly the only ones available, and the few that actually mention his name are either passing references ([1]) or are linked to the sale of his company (which had 120 employees"

The information you are stating is not correct as it appears you are getting companies and the articles confused. You cite a story about the voicemail system from 1991 which there is also a second article from the Courier Journal specifically about Wellemeyer.

The article [2] you reference saying that the company has 120 employees when it was sold is not accurate, as this article is from 2009, when the Smoothstone company was not sold until 2012. There are conflicting information on the number of employees at the time of the sale with one publication saying 320 and another one stating 420.

I would suggest you use this article as reference instead, “High-tech firm invents wireless technology for Internet access”

Your assertion, “There is no article, independent book (or chapter of a book), tv, or other media that ran a piece "dedicated" to the subject” is completely untrue. Business leaders and entrepreneurs live their lives through their products, technologies, companies and inventions and every news article is going to contain information about more than just the subject themselves.

Additionally, you seem to have skipped over the sale of Harlow’s Casino to Churchill Downs for USD$138Million and the sale of Viperink to Paul Allen, or his purchase of the defunct Hodges Bay property here in Antigua.

Even though your comment, “It is not even clear how much money he made personally from the sale of his business as investors funded it” should really not apply under WP:GNG I will go down that path with you. In November , the VoiceTimes, which from what I can tell is the local newspaper in Louisville, ran an article on his personal residence describing it as a 13,000sf estate, a door signed by frequent guest Muhammad Ali and a 13 ½ car garage. Obviously, he made a dollar or two from the time he was a senior in high school with his “just selling existing tech to sell voicemail systems to local businesses in his area” as you claim. Fast forward to 2016 and a little more about what I know of Wellemeyer the article in Luxury Lifestyles and the TV clip from ABSTV-10 describe him and his US$100Million project here in Antigua, despite your characterization of the national newspaper of Antigua & Barbuda and our television station as being “low-grade RS”. The only way to publicly know what someone is worth (at least in the US) is if they have achieved a Fobes rating of some type which obviously Wellemeyer is not close to , but I think the fact that there are very clearly demonstrated sales of multiples of his businesses in the hundreds of millions of dollars and to publicly traded and sophisticated tech buyers makes your statement that all that, “He simply took existing tech to sell voicemail systems to local businesses in his area” irrelevant. (I will point out that the Voice Mail business you are referencing in that statement was from 1991 when he was a senior in high school.

As far as your accusatory comments with respect to WP:SOCKS. I now seem to be the only one continuing to comment on this discussion. I have been totally upfront about myself and my intentions since the very beginning of this discussion. Antigua is not the UK and it is not America, there are very few people from this country that are involved in Wikipedia editing or that have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, but that doesn’t mean that we have bad intentions and does not mean that we are doing anything wrong WP:CIVIL.

This is really not an argument on opinion or what how you feel about a few select citations in the article, it is a reality that once you look through all the facts, it is clear the article meets the requirements under [[WP:GNG] Dmastic0101 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are under the impression that writing long blocks of text will make up for having no suitable material that supports notability.

For the record for future AfDs on this subject, let us go through your argument above:

1. There is no article in The Courier Journal on the subject; however, it there was, it is too local to demonstrate national notability. We delete well-referenced articles to local journals for town mayors, politicians, public servants, some of whom have over 10 full bios in their local/regional papers, but they get deleted.

2. Bloomberg Executive Profile lists names. It supports existance not notability. I appear in this, but it would not support my BLP.

3. The American Cities Business Journals is a PR article for your firm launching a new product; ViperLink turned out to be a non-notable technology (if it even ever was a new technology), and would never get a WP article as such. A review of WP:GNG sources for Viperlink is just as blank as for this subject.

4. Selling a business or asset does not give you notability when your name is mentioned in passing (and sometimes not at all). This is not by accident. For example, it could be that you only owned 1% of these assets, and hence the reason why your name is only mentioned in passing (and sometimes not at all) is because RS knew this, and thus it emphasizes your lack of notability. None of these transactions ever (ever) prompted an RS to do a piece on you (as the subject). Ever.

5. There is an odd section where you "go down that path" re wealth, but it gives nothing that supports a BLP. It does however strongly imply that you are the subject with WP:COI

6. Regarding WP:SOCKS, you are now confident that "the only one continuing to comment on this discussion". Reflect on that.

7. And after all that text, we are still left with the same fact-base, which does not support WP notability for your BLP.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, you are arguing with me as if this is an argument, I am taking on for myself personally. It is not. This guy doesn’t know me and given how low of a profile he keeps, I don’t know if he would even want this article. This is me arguing for a guy that is well known in the VoIP industry and well known on the Island of Antigua. I really feel you need to look at this coverage holistically, on his contributions and notoriety, as opposed to trying to poke holes in individual 20+ year old articles. Second, I am not under that impression that long responses make up for anything. I wrote the long response in hopes of you reading through the materials in their entirety. You are back to an argument that does not make sense or effect WP:GNG.

Let me again provide a constructive response to your statements: 1. There is no article in The Courier Journal on the subject; however, it there was, it is too local to demonstrate national notability. We delete well-referenced articles to local journals for town mayors, politicians, public servants, some of whom have over 10 full bios in their local/regional papers, but they get deleted.

I don’t understand why you are alleging there is no article in the Courier Journal. Please following this link. There is no requirement of which you speak in WP:GNG and town mayors, politicians and public servants are deleted because they are not notable for anything other than for one thing in a small geography.

2. Bloomberg Executive Profile lists names. It supports existance not notability. I appear in this, but it would not support my BLP.

I agree with you this supports existence not notability, but it does show Wellemeyer was an officer of a publicly traded company and it provides an independent background from a third party.

3. The American Cities Business Journals is a PR article for your firm launching a new product; ViperLink turned out to be a non-notable technology (if it even ever was a new technology), and would never get a WP article as such. A review of WP:GNG sources for Viperlink is just as blank as for this subject.

I don’t believe you are reading all the articles in American City Business Journals on his company. This is the first article which is not a press release, it contains third party interviews and information including an interview with Roberta Wiggins, director of wireless mobile communications at the Yankee Group, a Boston-based marketing research group, said “no one in the industry has combined the high bandwidth available through ViperLink with wireless technology”. That article is followed by this one a year and a half later, where more details of the rollout are confirmed and indicated Wellemeyer’s 50% ownership in the business. In September of the following year this article discusses that ViperLink is now available in five cities and details the sale of the business to Paul Allen’ Darwin networks.

Again, in your analysis you are taking one business and one technology. This is a lot bigger than that and I think you need to look at it holistically. Wellemeyer’s main notoriety, and how I know of him, came from his work in the hosted/cloud VoIP services business and Smoothstone. I would encourage you to explore those articles.

4. Selling a business or asset does not give you notability when your name is mentioned in passing (and sometimes not at all). This is not by accident. For example, it could be that you only owned 1% of these assets, and hence the reason why your name is only mentioned in passing (and sometimes not at all) is because RS knew this, and thus it emphasizes your lack of notability. None of these transactions ever (ever) prompted an RS to do a piece on you (as the subject). Ever.

I completely agree with you. However, there are multiple businesses here and obviously he owned a significant chunk of them or he would likely not be buying $100 Million resorts in the Caribbean. I would encourage you to re-read the articles on some of the transaction as not only is he talked about in the sale transaction but is pictured in a couple of the them.

5. There is an odd section where you "go down that path" re wealth, but it gives nothing that supports a BLP. It does however strongly imply that you are the subject with WP:COI

I don’t know what you are talking about. You were the one that was making the argument that he did not meet the WP:GNG because he did not own enough of the businesses. I was simply stating in the “going down the path” that according to WP:GNG wealth does not have to play a part in determining WP:GNG. I don’t think anyone would argue that the fact that Jimmy Wales is not worth hundreds of millions of dollars does not change his notoriety.

6. Regarding WP:SOCKS, you are now confident that "the only one continuing to comment on this discussion". Reflect on that.

I am very confused. I would imagine most people would say “who cares?”, this is not worth my time to fight, and I am honestly about at that point. One person decides to get involved and stand up for someone that they barely know and feel strongly about and the community of Wikipedia just slams them for it? Accuses them of WP:COI

7. And after all that text, we are still left with the same fact-base, which does not support WP notability for your BLP.

Forget it. I’m out. You win. It’s not worth the fight and I don't even have a dog in this one. Do what you want. Obviously, you know more than everyone else. Dmastic0101 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are a collection of articles which mention Wellemeyer but none of which actually are about him. No significant coverage. shoy (reactions) 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 21:17, 18 February 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 World Canada. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Amiri[edit]

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

Being a beauty pageant contestant does not give default notability. The sourcing in the article is the website of the competion she won and her personal website. My search for additional sources turned up almost exclusively interviews and blogs, nothing that is the 3rd party reliable seconadary sources on which Wikipedia articles need to be based. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World Canada; functional search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Canada ,Per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 17 February 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 delete. A7. Non-notable CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Anne Starr[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger. Declined twice and rejected at AFC. —teb728 t c 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 05:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 05:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability requirements. Clearly an autobiography, I just removed sections which accused people of rape and attempted murder without reliable sources. Greyjoy^talk 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Greyjoy Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Fails WP:GNG user has edited disruptively and with socks to repeatedly re-create the draft with not a single reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No credible claim of significance, can qualify for deletion under A7. There are claims like "Has above average number of followers" on webstarts. Daiyusha (talk) 08:10, 11 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of strong chess tournaments[edit]

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

No evidence provided that this list has any notability. No in-line sources provided. There is no indication of how the term "strongest" should be defined or whether this is simply WP:OR of whoever contributes. Without any clear-cut rationale this is little more than an incomplete directory listing dependent on the whims of the contributing editors. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just what is a "strong" chess tournament? This is just absurdity, it's nothing more than an indiscriminately selected list of tournaments by users. Fails WP:NOR and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of coverage of chess tournaments and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Focussing on the strong ones is sensible and it's easy to do this in a reasonably objective way because chess has a well-organised rating system and so FIDE has a category system based on the average Elo rating of the players. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been doing a lot of editing on this page as I've noticed a lot of mid-tier tournaments/team tournaments etc on the page and have been trying to apply more objective criteria to it, with a strong tournament being those with at least two top 10 players. However, the official ratings lists only goes back to 1971 and for anything before that, I've had to refer to Chessmetrics ratings lists which is far from perfect. And I understand that even this attempt for 'objectivity' can be rather arbitrary. Qindarka (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it’s not entirely satisfactory. When I started this article, I included only those tournaments that were judged the strongest throughout time by the authors of relevant encyclopedia and magazine articles (see refs). It was important to me to be reflecting expert opinion. However, being practical, it is impossible to stop editors from adding to it, and of course, expert opinion varies with whatever selection criteria is used. It should also be noted, that many of the foreign language Wikis carry a similar list; the German one is particularly extensive and detailed. It’s a very nice piece of work, but like the others, has no properly defined criteria for inclusion, and so doesn’t help us. I’m not sure what the long term answer is. Maybe User:Qindarka’s recent pruning, to include only tournaments with minimum two top ten players has been a good compromise, provided it is policed, but I can’t see that article deletion is a positive way forward. It seems to me that a list of this type has a rightful place in any chess related encyclopedia and indeed, some of the most important specialist printed books have their own version … such as ‘’The Chess Kings: Vol. 1’’, by Olsen, and ‘’Guiness Chess: The Records’’, by Whyld. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands per WP:LISTN for being indiscriminate but probably better to Draftify/rename and make the list discriminate, as they say. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has format problems and could use better citations, but the general topic is notable. "Strong chess tournaments" are those with many of the strongest players in the world participating - there may be room to improve the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no objective or particularly well-defined criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How would this article differ from a "List of strong U.S. Presidents" that was based on undefined criteria? Such an article would be deleted as WP:OR, as should this. If this was a list of strong chess tournaments as recognised by FIDE (or other notable organisation, or notable chess writer), then we have an article. However, as currently written, we don't. Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Britishfinance. Needs less arbitrary and ad box criteria for membership. Edison (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any list where the inclusion criteria are defined and then followed by the words "Inevitably, this introduces a degree of subjectivity" is clearly based on OR. Article should be deleted and potentially replaced with an article on top chess tournaments based on clearly defined and unequivocal, preferably statistical, criteria (if that is possible) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is no List of chess tournaments; perhaps the concerns that "strong" is subjective can be solved by renaming this? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a rename would be a good start. The only real problem as noted is the fact it uses an arbitrary guideline for inclusion. It's not a bad article and I'd like to see it at worst draftified, in spite of my delete vote, as it would be easier to fix this article than it would be to delete it outright and start fresh. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the "Major recurring tournaments" should be on a List of chess tournaments, that section looks fairly good. There's no great value in a list of each individual tourney blue-link; there's a category for those pages. The full per-year table with winners is probably best moved to a draft for now. I doubt that the format that currently exists will work; a version with references, dates of the tournament, etc. will probably need to be broken down by decade (and would require tens of hours of work; hours that I don't have right now). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fair. Changed my vote to draftify, since this shouldn't be on mainspace as it stands, and could easily be on mainspace if properly modified. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've moved the per-year table to a draft in my userspace User:power~enwiki/Chess; the remaining article looks a lot better in mainspace. If somebody objects, they can revert; but I think it's clear the consensus is that the long list is not ready for mainspace in its current form. I also note List of mini chess tournaments, which has worse problems and may need a separate AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify criteria, which may have multiple factors and may have changed over time. Remove the "Major recurring tournaments" section since that is duplicated in the template. Change the default to "show" for that template. The exception would be if that section was made into a table with start and end year and maybe some other notes (e.g. # of contestants, avg rating, GM players, country, ref for strong,…). StrayBolt (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some refs for recent mentions of "strong chess tournaments".[20][21][22][23][24][25] StrayBolt (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody doubts that the phrase "strong chess tournaments" is used, but this article needs to be deleted in the same way that an article titled "List of strong U.S. Presidents" would be deleted. Would be nice to have an article listing all the tournaments with a "rating above X", however this is not such an article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:07, 18 February 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 nom withdrawn. Thanks for the feedback. I'll be more careful to examine WP:NACADEMIC in future, (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kleinberg[edit]

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

No sources except a single primary in two years. No indication of passing WP:NACADEMIC. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Triptothecottage: Google Scholar shows over 8000 citations to his work [26]. In your opinion, is that insufficient to pass WP:NACADEMIC#C1? Bakazaka (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised he's still associate, but with two JACM papers in the last year alone it's certainly not because of inactivity. Maybe he's just overshadowed by having a more-celebrated brother in the same department? Anyway, with 29 papers with over 100 citations each and a Google Scholar h-index of 52 [27] he very easily passes WP:PROF#C1. And if you want more in-depth sources about his life and work (although we don't use those sorts of things as measures for notability of academics) there's always [28] and [29]. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an H-index of 52 (from Google Scholar) is pretty good for theoretical computer science (even if I take into account the inflation due to Google scholar). Add to that three first 3 papers with the highest citations are in ICML, INFOCOMM, STOC all tier 1 conferences. There are other papers in SOCA and FOCS as well (also tier 1). Undoubtedly notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability does not require that secondary sources that establish notability be used in the page, it only requires that they exist per WP:NEXIST. Looking at the above it looks like enough sources to establish notability do exist. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~but Draftify~~. Subject is notable ~~but the article is almost unreferenced which is not suitable for a BLP; draftify.~~Britishfinance (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that it is referenced, it is a keep. Britishfinance (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to DreamLinker and Zetifree, the referencing has been significantly improved. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's not a lot of significant independent references, but the number of citations in Google Scholar is huge. Qualifies as a notable academic.Sandals1 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Suggest this nomination is withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 14 February 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. Tone 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kennedy (swim coach)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rampant violation of WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and just about every other notability standard possible. Nuke it! Skirts⁸⁹ 15:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 11 February 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Lucena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly random figure, no sources and I cannot find anything that would warrant an article for somebody of this name. 00aa0 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@00aa0: The page doesn't exist, and I can't find any logs that say it existed and then was deleted... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Yes, it was a mistake on my part. The page is by the title Juan_de_Lucena

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [30], [31], [32], [33] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Draftify~~. No referencing whatsoever. There is clearly evidence that his was a notable charachter, and a full article on Spanish Wikipedia. However, pasting in one line in English and relying on a link to Spanish Wikipedia as the only reference does not seem appropriate. Do we need (or already have) a policy on this? Good job by SkyGazer 512! Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT is the guideline that applies if you are unhappy with the current state of the article. I can't do everything myself, and I've done the work of finding sources, so how about a bit of constructive collaborative editing? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can I. Therefore, I do rely on other editors to bring their articles to a basic standard that can exist on the Mainspace; otherwise they should be in Draftspace.Britishfinance (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if it was in Draft space then who would improve it, as I see, after I visited the article with the intention of adding a couple of sentences, User:SkyGazer 512 has done? Just because you don't have the time to expand an article, or prefer to spend your time on marking other people's work rather than doing any yourself, it doesn't mean that articles should be hidden away from where more constructive editors can work on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I have tried to expand it a little bit. For completely unfamiliar topics, especially when most of the sources are in another languages, expansion can be a bit hard, and the article did previously contain virtually no information, so I do understand Britishfinance's point. However, I definitely have noticed that once articles are moved into draftspace they often have no progress made there, and after a few months they are G13d. I'll try to do more expansion, but the fact that the two sources I use (which both seem reliable) have about a 30-year date difference for information, that makes things a bit difficult... --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite normal for historical subjects, particularly those that date from before movable-type printing was in widespread use where they were active, to have secondary sources that differ about the facts. You have done an excellent job of summarising the English-language sources. I understand Spanish a little, but am by no means fluent in it, but I'm sure that we have many editors who understand it better than I do so they will be able to develop this further based on the majority of sources that are in Spanish. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am confident that this nomination was made in good faith, but I'm afraid a thorough WP:BEFORE search wasn't performed. I do believe that this meets WP:GNG; it is just not shown in the current state of the article.

Although the majority of sources I can find are in Spanish (those are still acceptable as sources, but it means I can't really evaluate their reliability), I was able to find several English sources. We have this and this, which seem quite reliable and although Lucena isn't necessarily the main subject, his works are and I think they have enough information about him to be considered significant coverage. This book definitely provides significant coverage, and appears to have a good author and publisher. This source is certainly significant, although I'm a bit less sure about it's reliability; the author appears to be an expert in the subject but Lulu.com is a self-publishing company. There's also this book, which seems reliable and significant enough.

As may be expected, there's a lot more than this in Spanish. There's this book, which has a good author and publisher, this book which I'm not able to preview but it seems reliable and it looks to be the same Juan de Lucena based on what I can see. There's a lot more in Spanish that I can see, but again, I can't really evaluate the reliability and just how significant the coverage is for non-English sources; my Spanish is very poor!

I think it's clear that this meets the general notability guideline and I could probably provide stronger sources if I spoke better Spanish. I could understand why this was nominated for deletion, as it literately contained a single sentence with no sources before, as well as why onbe may argue that it should have been draftified; but I have expanded this to a few short paragraphs, added two references, and and as time permits I will probably do more for this article. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:43, 14 February 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. Tone 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncovering History[edit]

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

A school textbook used in Ireland that does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:BOOK) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate that the text book meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. All the sources that I can find confirm the book's existence (listings by book-sellers, the publisher, etc), but not its notability (reviews, critical analysis, etc). Doesn't appear to be a particularly noteworthy school book or otherwise worthy of coverage in a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:53, 18 February 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. Tone 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gambit (game)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any useful sources. BGG has nothing of note. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reference is a deadlink - based on archive.org it was a game review by someone who played the game once and doesn't establish notability. Not on BoardGameGeek and no good sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 15 February 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. Tone 09:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collin O'Mara[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. There are a few reference links but just doesn't quite pass the smell test. ~~Could merge with article of his wife, Krish Vignarajah, if her article survives its own AFD.~~ Quis separabit? 22:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that suggestion, Krish Vignarajah was redirected to 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election at that AFD. [email protected] 00:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Gpkp who accepted this at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng, it was @ WP:AFC.

Keep. Person is the CEO of notable organization.--Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fail WP:SIGCOV. Barely any mention of him outside social media or the places he works at, hence the reason the article has no references. scope_creep^Talk 10:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SIGCOV failure, and the subject should not inherit undue notability from the notable organization he occupies a position at.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 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. Tone 09:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Womack[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as press coverage online is insufficient to prove general notability. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin Academy Preparatory School[edit]

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

This article was instigated through the Articles for Creation process, and was declined for having no independent sources. The nominator immediately resubmitted without any changes, and was again declined by @Boothsift:. It was then resubmitted *again* in less than twelve hours, and this time accepted by @Legacypac:, who stated that he watches out for this nominator's submissions so he can approve them, without engaging with the reasons it had been twice declined. It was then redirected to Oberlin College by a third editor, @Justlettersandnumbers:, and undone by the nominator. Two more editors, @Barkeep49: and @Bradv:, endorsed Justlettersandnumbers' decision on the talk page, but Legacypac has reverted any merge.

The entire AfC process breaks down if users can have an article that doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, get declined twice by two different reviewers, and then just keep resubmitting without making changes until they get an answer they like. A couple more links (to Oberlin College's Tumblr page and the school newspaper) have been added since, reinforcing that there appear to be no sources for this whatsoever outside of the school. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what you said. --It's Boothsift 03:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A core point of this statement is incorrect. I saw the decline by Boothsift (because I watch FloridaArmy's talkpage) and on review, disagreed with the decline so I resubmitted and accepted the page [34] not FloridaArmy. FloridaArmy is not trying to game the system he works hard to improve pages, usually on very historic topics. There are now plenty of sources outside the school's own records. Since the school has been closed for 100+ years none of the weblinked sources are actually self published qnyway. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination by an editor that flat out lied about my interaction with the article here [35]. Follow the link to my comment which they blatantly misrepresented on the talkpage and may have made this nomination to make a point against my acceptance of the page after they declined it.

This school opened in 1833 and closed in 1916 (over one hundred years ago). Not a short period of time. There is zero possible promotional value to anyone or thing in having this page. No one except the interested reader benefits from it. No one who even attended the school is alive to enjoy having their school get a Wikipedia page. So the normal reasons we shy away from having pages on organizations are not applicable.

Is it notable? It admitted African American and female students in a time when this was very unusual - its sister college (which it started as a department of) being one of the first post secondary schools to admit African American and female students in the United States. The US battled through desegregation 130 years after Oberlin opened ad a school that accepted all colors and both sexes. That certainly makes this an unusual and notable institution. The town of Oberlin is named for school (the college and academy later split). Numerous alumni have articles.

Perhaps there is a case to merge in the history of the academy with the college since they were the same entity for some years, however the College page is already fairly long so there is also a case to WP:SPINOUT an article on the school that was spunout of the college in real life. Frankly, if a historic school can't have a page, but we accept all kinds of athletes and cartoon charactors etc what are we trying to build exactly with Wikipedia? Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any sources about the school's admission policy - we only know they admitted African American and female students because they have some notable alumni and there are actually-decent sources about the alumni that reference where they went to school. The inability to reference any sources about the school's actual policy (considering that notability is being largely staked on it) illustrates how little there actually is in the way of reliable sources for this topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin College does have good sourcing for admission policies around African Americans, and this school was a unit of the College for the first few years in question. Pretty obviously the inclusive admission policies of the College applied to it's prep school too. Some refs could be transferred over. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to operate under the assumption that references to the college apply to the academy because none exist for the academy, that's yet another argument for merging, not keeping. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The College had groundbreaking admissions policy which obviously it's high school division followed. Do you have sources showing the math departmemt or the english department had groundbreaking admissions policies or do we accept that the college policies applied across the school? Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if no one wrote about the high school division specifically, which given the effort that has been belatedly put into finding sources appears to be the case, then there's no basis for it to have an article separate from the college. We don't have articles on the math department or the english department of the college either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the criteria we use for judging high schools if this high school were open today with this level of sourcing, which let's be clear includes quite a few clearly notable alum, this would be a slam dunk notable topic and is never going to get deleted at AfD. The fact that it's historical means further sourcing is going to be harder to come by than a contemporary article but this doesn't change the notability of this topic. It is, clearly and indisputably by current Wikipedia standards, notable in my mind. However, that does not mean that a separate article is the best way to serve our readers this information. I will make a formal !vote sometime before the seven days are up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a merge might be a good way to serve our readers but instantly redirecting without a merge is not serving anyone nor is removing the title via AfD Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merge either, obviously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I have now spent what I consider a fairly indepth amount of time researching this and all mentions are fleeting. I think it should be merged to Oberlin College but I hope some history or education professor takes the time to go through the archives at the College and write a paper on this because it definitely seems like there is an interesting history to be written - we just don't know what it is yet and might not ever so having its own article is not in the best interests of our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite get to keep given the lack of any sources which really cover this in SIGCOV but have struck my merge !vote as I am less convinced given the effort editors has put into this that a merge would be in the best interests of our readers. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mission Matters and Schooling the Freed People listed by Roy below are the SIGCOV I'd been hoping for. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Merge~~ to Oberlin College. The topic is interesting, but I fear the school itself fails the GNG, and there's way too little written about it for it to be its own article. All of the sources that I can find mention the academy within the context of the college, and there's nothing that suggests that it's independently notable. However, the fact that this is not mentioned at all within the college article is a situation that needs to be rectified, which is why I'm voting to merge rather than delete or redirect. Bradv🍁 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep. While I would still prefer this be part of the larger college article, there appear to be enough sources now to consider this independently notable. Bradv🍁 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, fails WP:NCORP – which has absolutely nothing to do with COI, and to which it is not less subject because it closed in 1916 (some fairly fundamental misunderstandings there). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP under schools references WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES where we have "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And right below it it explicitly states that high schools should not be presumed to be notable just because they exist, and that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is an arguement to avoid in deletion discussions. I'm not making SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a stand alone arguement either. You can't just dismiss our policy statements amd guidelines when they go directly against your opinion. We have sources that show the high school existed. We have kept lots of pages on high schools that are a heck of a lot less historic with fewer notable connected people. We follow precident at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the most recent RfC reached no consensus. I think that everyone posting here so far knows the score on this matter as would any potential closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced and notable. And if merged, merging to Oberlin, Ohio#History is a better target, but one that also shows why it's silly to merge - it'd be a disproportionate amount of coverage about one school. SnowFire (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Weak Merge The sourcing isn't fantastic and wouldn't customarily be sufficient to pass NCORP, however, we've generally presumed notability on secondary schools subject to the minimum criteria of its existence being verifiable. Based on the sources, I have no reason to believe this school didn't exist. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exceptionally notable college preparatory high school that educated African Americans and women including the founder of the ANC in South Africa, artists, authors etc. Many notable alumni, faculty, and administrators. A merge would not make sense and would be undue. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to search for for "Oberlin Academy" rather than "Oberlin Academy Preparatory School":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, I agree. Thanks for putting the find sources toolbar for that name on the page. I will note for the closer that this is how I did the overwhelming bulk of my searching and my thinking on those results are reflected in my !vote above. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable old time secondary school. It it changed names a couple of times, but it was an accredited secondary school that closed in 1915 - and that would be enough to make it a keeper. This, however, was a notable secondary school because it prepared "negro" youth to enter university. It is covered INDEPTH in scholarly books including Elusive Utopia: The Struggle for Racial Equality in Oberlin, Ohio, Gary Kornblith, Carol Lasser, LSU Press, 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I'm a somewhat reluctant merge for the other reasons you've distressed. What do you see that suggests INDEPTH coverage in Elusive Utopia? I spent time looking at what I saw and it didn't suggest that level to me but perhaps I was missing something or analyzed it wrong. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more that I find sourcing everywhere I look. Page has enormous potential for improvement, for example, I just searched a different way and found Fanny Jackson Coppin, added her and what I found about her to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is quite an exaggeration: editors have failed to find sources for even basic things about the school, such as who it admitted, and the tiny amount of sourcing that has been turned up is inevitably in internal college sources. Turning up yet another alumni (or staff member) because enough sourcing exists about them to list a passing reference to where they went to school doesn't mean that the school is notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drover's Wife, I'm just doing the sort of routine checks I do at AfD, such as searching JSTOR for Oberlin + "Preparatory department". That search got 136 hits. They won't all be valid, let alone INDEPTH, and I certainly haven's had time to read that many papers. But this, along with the many hits on gBooks, most of which, as you say, are brief mentions of individuals who attended. Nevertheless, I am confident of notability. For one thing, Not many 19th century secondary schools have this impressive a list of notable alumni. For another, we really don't delete secondary schools that have sourcing. Even though there is not that much SIGCOV of most American high schools. Here, I can't help but think that someone with the patience to read those JSTOR hits - or Fanny Jackson Coppin memoir - would find material form which ot build a pretty good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I don't know if we found exactly the same JSTOR hits but I spent about an hour and a half looking through what I found and was underwhelmed with what I found. I think there is enough documentary evidence between what I found and what is clearly in the Oberlin archives for something to be written - an interesting something. And if this ends up as keep, well great. There's no question for me that this school was real and was notable at the time. However, does our tying together these crumbs help our readers gain more insight and knowledge or does making a more concise version of it that emphasizes what we do know best, help them more? I came down on the side of the latter but have great sympathy for those who came down on the side of the former. But I think we should be honest and not say that's what we're doing not that there are great sources that we just haven't found. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different perspectives, just as you say. My experience is that when a separate article exists, people are quite likely to expand and source it. At least, it is something I often do. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moseyed here from DRV. Two points. 1) Can one of the keep !voters explain which the WP:THREE best sources for keeping this article are? I leaning merge, but these are difficult sources to sift through. 2) The article has expanded quite a bit since it was nominated per WP:HEY, but I'm distressed this was moved from AfC before it should have been. We should not be accepting or denying articles based on who created the article, but rather on the content of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a merge/redirect !voter, but the apparent notability (or not) of the article hasn't changed since it was accepted in any meaningful way. I would not have accepted at AfC personally, but the criteria for AfC is Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace. Considering this is likely to be a borderline AfD either way it goes the assessment, especially given general general outcomes at AfD around high schools, that it would likely survive AfD seems like an entirely fair reviewer judgement and thus well with-in policy and procedure. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted it because it is a notable old high school. As school articles go it is fairly long with quite a bit of info that will help the reader searching for more imfo on the school (pointing at offline sources for example). We know when, where and why it started. We know it (as part of the College) had groundbreaking admission policies. We have one of the longest lists of Wiki notable alumni I've seen on a school article. We knew about the historic building it operated in. We know where to find it's archives. We even link to (and could upload as it is out of copyright) a photo of a graduating class collected by the new Smithsonian Museum of African American History. My highschool has a long standing article but lacks notable alumni, any interesting admittance policy, has way fewer sources, and no museum cares about it's class photos. Absolutely the page could be expanded but that is not a reason to delete what we have put together already. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my 3 cents. 1.) I agree with points made about about the need to disallow end-runs around rules made by The Drover's Wife. 2.) However, when declined at AFC, this was a page [36] about an American High school reliably sourced to the archives of Oberlin College but lacking SECONDARY. Nevertheless, it was always going to be a KEEP at AfD because we keep high schools, because it was already had some reliable (albeit not SECONDARY,) sources, and because many additional sources exist. 3.) WP:HEY, Barkeep's assertion that "the article hasn't changed since it was accepted in any meaningful way." out of date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now no longer leaning merge but am voting keep based on the sources presented by RoySmith. I still think it was improperly accepted from AfC, but it's been greatly improved since then now there's been a spotlight on it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't agree with our policy of always keeping secondary schools based only on WP:V, but that does seem to be our policy, and this meets that in spades. As for WP:THREE, I'd put forth:
- "Mission Matters: Mount Holyoke, Oberlin, and the Schooling of Southern Blacks, 1861-1917". History of Education Quarterly.
- "Antebellum Black Coeds at Oberlin College." Women's Studies Newsletter.
- "Oberlin's Catalogue". New York Times.

all of which I found by examining in detail the first 6 of the 27 references in the article. So I don't think there's any question of meeting WP:N as well. For the complaint that this is tied to the university, we've got plenty of those. We suffer badly from WP:RECENTISM; for a historical subject such as this, you need to keep in mind that the Oberlin Preparatory Department wasn't prescient enough to have their own web site indexed by the search engines. That means you need to dig a bit harder to find sources, and re-calibrate your notability meter to account for the information processing and archiving technology that existed in the 1830's.

That being said, I agree that the history behind this wasn't AfC working at its best. When a draft is rejected, immediately resubmitting it with only trivial changes is not what you should be doing. But, there's other fora for debating that. Here, we're just concerned with whether we should keep this article in it's current state, and the answer to that is clearly yes. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to violate the "three, but no more than three" rule (especially since that's my own essay), but Schooling the Freed People has pretty good coverage. Oberlin Academy is called out as one of the two major secondary schools for black teachers (the other being Institute for Colored Youth) in post civil war America. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extensive treatment of "Oberlin Institute" is in Oberlin, Hotbed of Abolitionism. They seem to use the name to refer to the entire college, but there's a fair amount of material about the preparatory department, including a 1855 class photo. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found another excellent source: A history of Oberlin College from its foundation through the civil war. If you download the full PDF from archive.org, be patient. It's a 41 MB file and their servers are pretty slow. It'll take a few minutes. It looks like the full text (as plain text) is also available at https://www.gospeltruth.net/oberlinhistory.htm. Chapter XI is mostly about the preparatory school. There's a copy of the original announcement in the PDF, on an unnumbered plate sheet between pages 122 and 123. For those keeping WP:N score, this is not an independent source, but it's still a good one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per basic common sense. This is clearly a much more notable school than many currently existing ones. It appears that some editors have lost sight of the basic fact that this is an encyclopedia, and that this is obviously a topic that an encyclopedia should cover. This is the type of ignorant deletion nomination that made me give up editing with my userid years ago, and, after I was persuaded to start editing again a month or two ago, makes me think that this place is even more being run by people with no understanding of common sense than it was then. The nomination statement describes a broken WP:AFC process, by which one editor's opinion becomes the last word on whether an article is acceptable, rather than anything wrong with this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of notable people went to school there. I agree all the coverage in books adds to its notability. Dream Focus 04:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable enough. Orientls (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the excellent research done by RoySmith. I'd also like to note that the statement The Drover's Wife linked in the nomination from Legacypac does not demonstrate that Legacypac watches FloridaArmy's talk page so he can approve them [FloridaArmy's drafts]. That implies that Legacypac, as an AfC reviewer, exercises favouritism, when in reality, tackling the huge AfC backlog is often best done by reviewing articles by the most prolific article creators first. It's a common practice at both AfC and NPP, we even have tools to aid us in identifying the most prolific article creators (this and this) and if we didn't do it, the backlog would most likely be twice as big. I often search by keywords to spot advert drafts such as "renowned" or "legendary". I strongly advise the nominator to retract the statement regarding this. SITH (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a clear statement of favouritism. Two reviewers rejected the article with clear reasoning, validated by the fact it took about 500% more work than the author put in at AfC to swing the AfD away from merge (i.e. it could never have survived AfD in the form it was submitted to AfC in), and the only justification given for accepting it was that the author was who he was. Articles need to be assessed on their merits, not on their author. I don't care if you do it too: it's still favouritism. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the draft should have been declined, in my opinion it wasn't in a mainspace-ready state. However, tracking trends in order to keep the backlog down in an unbiased fashion is not favouritism. I see no evidence that suggests Legacypac has been biased towards FloridaArmy. Why don't you knock it off with the arguing against the perceived character of your opponents shtick and focus on the content of their actual arguments? SITH (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be clear, I agree that there's no way this should have been accepted from AfC in the state it was in at the time. At that point, it clearly failed WP:AFCR#Step 2: Notability and verifiability. Notable, yes. Reliably sourced, no. More specifically, it had just been declined twice in a row, by two different people, for exactly that reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on Notable topics don't need to be fully developed to be placed in mainspace for improvement. The test is "will the page survive AfD?" which this one was always going to do. At very worst, this page was a merge candidate with the College, which is just an editorial decision or talkpage discussion not a delete discussion. Given we tend to keep high schools that can be verified to exist - the page passed V just fine. The ill considered attempt to delete page has nicely helped it along onto something quite nice. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a good demonstration of why pages about notable topics should be in mainspace, where they can undergo the wiki process of collaborative improvement, rather than hidden away in draft space where nobody apart from the author can find them, something that goes completely against the principle of WP:OWN. The way that WP:AFC is used to prevent this process is disruptive to the development of this encyclopedia. It's just a pity that you don't apply the same principles to other clearly notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the reviewing instructions, If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The instructions for WP:AFC are not conducive to the collaborative building of this encyclopedia, and encourage a sense of ownership. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note That may or may not be true, but it is a topic for another forum. Some poor admin is going to have to plow through this already badly bloated AfD. The issue here is whether or not this article meets our guidelines and should be kept, or not. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable (now), if only for the unusually early US racial mix. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 17 February 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. Tone 09:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TerraLink[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – my search for sources was somewhat obfuscated by results for a Canadian horticulture company and a New Zealand mapping company, both also known as TerraLink. However, I am still confident that the significant, independent coverage required by WP:NCORP does not exist. – Teratix ₵ 13:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:37, 18 February 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. Tone 09:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Search[edit]

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

Insignificant executive placement firm.. Private company, but what I can find shows them with only $8 million revenue and 25 staff--worldwide [37] [38]

As expected, the references are straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete [39] is better sourcing than I'd expect for this type of article, but I don't see enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 15 February 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. Tone 09:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give musar[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary definition of a phrase used in some Orthodox Jewish circles. The phrase roughly means "to give ethical advice", "to sermonize" or "to rebuke". None of the cited sources are about "giving musar", but are rather citations to examples of people using the phrase (or in some cases, citations to completely unrelated texts, such as a Britannica article abut the tangentially related Musar movement that does not mention "giving musar"). I originally proposed that this article be merged into the related topic of Musar literature (or possibly to the slightly less related Musar movement), but upon reviewing the article I don't think there's anything worth merging. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:SYNTH. This is an expression used in yeshivish circles; it is also a "Heblish" expression (Hebrew-English), but certainly not appropriate as a Wikipedia topic. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear that any sources could support this being more than a Wiktionary article. While books could be written (and have been written!) detailing every yeshivish turn of phrase, this one doesn't seem merge- or keep-worthy. Gilded Snail (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe an article could be developed. Maybe. The current article is in the WP:TNT zone (SYNTH, OR, poor sources, poor prose, etc.), and we already have Musar movement and Musar literature. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment <Merge-into alternative(s)> Three articles could house the text of "Giving musar"

The "literature" can be used to drive the other two, but does not directly mandate.

The "movement" involved study, and could be used to drive action, but sometimes there is a mandate called "Shayv" - sit - "V'AL TaaSeh" - and don't do .. leading to discussions of situations where the cure is worse than ...

There is a phrasing (Psalms, 50:17) which ArtSCroll translates as "For you hate censure." Somehow, after looking at the flow of the last major section of Jewish ethics it seems like a good place to transfer "Give musar"

Per the HatNotes presently atop Give musar, I'm following up at Jewish ethics rather than challenge those who question the notability of "Give musar." Pi314m (talk) 18:47, 15 February 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. Tone 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrogression Radio Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No substantial coverage can be traced. Hitro talk 07:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the page this online radio station launched on January 1, 2019. Sources on page are PRIMARY. I found ZERO mentions in a gNews search. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another Internet radio station playing pretend real radio with radio format found in even the deepest part of the Amazon. Utterly generic. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 11 February 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. Tone 09:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kaitou Sentai Lupinranger VS Keisatsu Sentai Patranger characters[edit]

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

Not all lists are of encyclopedic value; this is one of them. It's nothing more than a list of original research with the usual way-too-extensive descriptions, over 80k of it. There are no secondary sources, which isn't surprising since the main article, Kaitou Sentai Lupinranger VS Keisatsu Sentai Patranger, also has no proper secondary sources. The redirect I placed was reverted without explanation by someone who probably doesn't know we're an encyclopedia, not Wikia. Deletion with a redirect is the proper solution. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN; largely unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The piece in question is a work of fiction, thus it is hard to find sources outside main sites. Alas, most of the "original research" comes from events from the show in question itself, and the character list contains very little data in relation to its own wikia, which is far more detailed, and all list of characters related to Tokusatsu are similar, so why bother deleting this one in particular? Exukvera (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All articles, even those about fictional works/characters, need to meet WP:GNG by receiving enough coverage from third-party and reliable sources to warrant a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror site for Wikia or TV Asahi's show pages. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 13 February 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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean girl groups[edit]

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

This article seems to be subvert the usage of List of South Korean idol groups into specific girl group fork. While each group may be reliably source, the amount of indiscriminate trivia and lack of sources on generations, "concepts" and list of television shows seems far outside the norm for List articles.

The best I can point to is List of girl groups, which doesn't include such things. Far too much subjective information that approaches a fanpage, not a encyclopedic article. Evaders99 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not clean up. If there is information that you think does not belong, remove it. But you don't seem to be challenging the idea of the list itself or that its entries are verifiable, which means you do not have a deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced, all the main entries are notable, as is the subject itself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by UnitedStatesian. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This well-sourced article on the notable subject matter of Korean "girl groups" is an obvious keep for the encyclopedia, and a contribution to the historical record. It is not a fanpage as represented in deletion nom; it could be enlarged and developed - the fact that it is in a start stage is not criteria for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of south korean girl groups has enough weight to hold itself(notability) to warrant a standalone article. You could argue that the article needs improvements (such as a better sorting), which I agree with, but to simply delete the article would not be wise, as it is encyclopedic. Garlicolive (talk) 19:30, 14 February 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. Per this discussion, NACTOR is not met in that the topic has not had multiple significant roles in notable films, in that none of the films mentioned have articles or have otherwise been shown to be notable. GNG has not been shown to be met, and no other argument has been put forth to demonstrate notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kresh Novakovic[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Sole source is IMDb, which is not a RS by itself alone. He has a Facebook page, but that also is not a reliable source. [email protected] 06:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other references appear to confirm notability. This review of Leaves of the Tree confirms the actor's role in that film. This review confirms his role in Mikeyboy. This article about the Gasparilla Film Festival confirms his roles in both “The Fix” and “Leaves of the Tree”. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- @Eastmain: the above said ref's are not good source to have an article, what i feel is the article doesn't meet notable guidelines.Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above references don't really have significant coverage, and I can't find any that do. For a source to confirm notability, it has to have discussion of the subject besides just mentioning their existence, or saying that they had such and such role. Gilded Snail (talk) 04:09, 12 February 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. Keep by strength of arguments. The fact it is an event in a small village does not take away from the national coverage it has received. The fact that there are errors in the article does not mean they can not be replaced by correctly sourced factual information, or else removed. The topic has been shown to be notable, and therefore the topic should be included. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iepenloftspul Jorwert[edit]

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

The list of plays is hopelessly wrong in many ways. See the non-exhaustive discussion at Talk:Iepenloftspul Jorwert#Disputed. The Frisian article contains the identical mistakes, and none of the citation helps solve any of the puzzles: plays, authors and years are all in doubt. I recommend WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local activity in a village of 342 people, no indication of its significance outside of it. Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That national newspapers talk about it should speak sufficiently for its notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. My nomination didn't address notability, only gross inaccuracy. Did William Shakespeare write Oliver Twist, or Giovannino Guareschi Die Dreigroschenoper? just to pick two glaring examples. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that is not a deletion criterion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to rip out the current list, and rewrite it from scratch (I'll try to get to it), and then let it evolve from there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National coverage seems to suggest notability beyond 'local activity in a village'. Also commenting to say that this article was apparently nominated for deletion due to its inaccuracies rather than notability (or lack thereof), which I don't think should be standard AfD practice (WP:ATD). Gilded Snail (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list of plays has to go as unsourced and disputed material. The rest of the article seems fine; this seems to be a regional event in Frisian-speaking areas of the Netherlands and isn't the equivalent of a high-school play. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not unsourced, it has a source for year and play. Moreover, it has been cleaned up so that all possibly wrong items have been removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 16 February 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 am pretty much discounting all commentary by ip174.72.248.8 . Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Distefano[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable individual. Article created by son. Understandable but doesn't meet the threshold of notability, IMHO. Quis separabit? 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep... but cleanup and re-focus significantly. He was a moderately important businessman on the Las Vegas Strip during the glory days, and got posthumous coverage of that in a fair number of reliable media sources after his death. There are some retrospective sources out there that could be added to the article to enhance the history of his business dealings. (But beware that there is a Chicago mobster of almost the same name: Sam DeStefano.) On the other hand, the gentleman's music is completely insignificant and non-notable, and it's evident that the article's creator (a family member) is trying to round out the man's life story with useless family values. That stuff can be removed, and get rid of most of the photos too. Otherwise there might be enough for a stub article on his business history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User 174.72.248.8 (who voted twice below), edited MY vote and put the following text in the middle of my comment: (LOL. Whatever you say, Lord Vader. LOL. Every fact in this man's bio is one hundred percent true, accurate, and just that - factual; and can be confirmed, referenced, and sourced all day long. And if his century-lifelong achievements aren't 'notable,' but rather 'completely insignificant and non-notable,' I'd like to read YOUR biography. Lol. :)) (Of course! Readers HATE photos, right? LOL. They're so boring. LOL. :)) My comment has been restored to its original. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Doomsdayer520 (an apparently well-thought-out and most appropriate name) is absolutely misalleging that his or her vote was "edited." Not one single word or even so much as one letter of his or her "vote" was touched, removed, changed, deleted, or "edited" in any way at all whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Wikipedia tracks edit histories? My comment was first altered by 174.72.248.8 in this edit: [40], with several more tweaks by the same user. Note that I was first called "Satan" before it was changed to "Vader". All this for recommending that we KEEP the article! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreeing with original post.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... He obviously was an integral component to the history of entertainment on both the famous Playboy Club chain circuit as well as the Las Vegas Strip. Practically every aspect of his illustrious career is sourceable. As an example, he was a judge on Star Search and there are clippings viewable on the Internet of the shows he appeared on. He also led the famous 32-piece house orchestra at Playboy's flagship resort property that backed all of its very famous headliners for over a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: How could someone who co-created, associated-produced, and booked four different legendary productions shows on the Las Vegas Strip that ran for a total of over an entire century combined (i.e., Splash, An Evening At La Cage, An Evening At The Improv, and Crazy Girls (which is still running to this day at Planet Hollywood since Distefano along with Norbert Aleman and Meshulam Riklis originally co-created, associate-produced, and booked it over a third of a century ago in 1986 at the Riviera and it hasn't stopped running one single night since)) as well as started countless celebrities in show business by launching their careers on the iconic, international Playboy Club circuit for over a quarter century straight (while simultaneously accompanying on piano, leading, and conducting the world-class 32-piece orchestra that backed all of these countless celebrities at Playboy's 1,600-acre resort in Lake Geneva for 10 of those 25 years) be "non-notable???" Is this a fair question worth contemplating?
Pinging Mdann52 who appears to be the one who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The two "keep" votes above are by the same person, 174.72.248.8. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And while Doomsdayer520 is counting 'votes,' why not expend some of that same time counting his or her own "notes?" You always this passionate and dedicated to sabotaging people's Wiki pages??? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were previously two "Keep" votes above, both by 174.72.248.8 and the second remains unsigned. This editor has since changed the second vote from "Keep" to "Note". All of this is clearly visible in the edit history, which is a record that cannot be sabotaged. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Retracted - Admins, please disregard my vote above and do not count it in the final decision (in other words, my vote is now Abstain.) I first recommended that we KEEP the article, but nevertheless I have had my comment vandalized by the article's supporter, who has called me "Satan" and accused me of sabotage when all I did was recommend cleaning up the article. This is clearly visible in the edit history, which cannot be sabotaged. Congratulations to Mr. 174.72.248.8 for alienating his own supporters. It's too bad that none of this makes old Mr. Distefano any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's really obvious from the very outset, how Doomsdayer520 was being "completely objective" and not acting from motives that were anything at all "personal" or the result of being perhaps a little oversensitive. LOL. In re to "Mr. Doomsdayer520's" alleged vote of "keep," it was (as the unsabotageable 'record' indisputably shows) in actuality, a vote of "weak keep." LOL. So, he or she evidently was "on the fence" from the start. Also, how could Mr. 174.82.248.8 "alienate his own supporter's'" if there was only one supporte"r" (i.e., singular as opposed to plural) in the first place??? So, not only is Doomsdayer520 exceptionally vulnerable to sticks, stones, and names that hurt him or her, he or she also appears to have a potential issue with distinguishing between singular and plural. LOL. Take it easy, Doomsdayer520. If it'll help dry your tears a bit, Mr. 174.72.248.8 hereby both retracts the "dark side" name-calling's as well as humbly and most sincerely apologizes for them. And Doomsdayer520 is most certainly correct when adding that "none of this makes old Mr. Distefano any more notable." Particularly when he or she, him or herself, incorrectly misstated (again as the indisputable Wiki record indicates and affirms) "old Mr. Distefano's" music was "completely insignificant and NON-NOTABLE." (Emphasis added.) LOL. Too bad indeed. Most especially since Doomsdayer520 was woefully and absolutely most incorrect (as he or she apparently has been about most everything in this 'discussion') in attempting to misapply those inapplicable adjectives to an accomplished jazz pianist who was bunkmates for three years straight in the same platoon, as well as best friends for life, with Bill Evans, lead on piano and conducted his own 32-piece house orchestra at the legendary, 1,600-acre Playboy Resort and Country Club in Lake Geneva for over a decade straight that accompanied Tony Bennett, Ann Margret, Liza Minnelli, Sammy Davis, Jr., Anthony Newley, Vic Damone, Buddy Rich, Diahann Carroll, Steve Lawrence and Edyie Gorme, and dozens more of the world's most legendary vocalists and jazz artists, could play over 1,500 standards in all twelve keys, and was the house pianist at the Stut 'N Tut in Miami (that he personally owned and operated) with the single greatest jazz trombonist in history (more so than even Kai Winding, Bill Watrous, J.J. Johnson, Tommy Dorsey, and Glenn Miller COMBINED) - Carl Fontana (also a dear, close, personal, lifelong, family friend of the Distefano's for DECADES). If that's not PROOF that "Mr. Doomsdayer520" should stick to editing horticulture bios, instead of attempting to wield false comments exposing his or her ignorance about "old Mr. Distefano," then nothing else could constitute that proof more. Now remember, Mr. Doomsdayer520, these are FACTS and it's really nothing personal. No joke. So, try to stay cool, calm, and collected. LOL. And also take note: Nothing in the above "Note" contained any "useless family values." LOL. LOL. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.72.248.8 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All but one of the sources are obituaries, simply not enough sustained significant coverage to establish notability. Also, @174.72.248.8 I suggest that you read WP:COI, specifically WP:COISELF, and WP:CIVIL. Best, GPL93 talk) 12:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distefano was legendary in his industry.

Keep Sam Distefano was well known and respected throughout the show business industry.

Comment @174.72.248.8 You are only allowed to vote once. GPL93 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDF field hospital for Gazans[edit]

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

Delete - Orphaned article, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Has POV language like "operation against the terror regime in Gaza. Hamas, however, had urged them to remain in the area and has been using the local population as human shields when firing missiles at Israeli civilians" etc. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) _{The user had no right to start this AFD per WP:A/I/PIAShrike (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Propaganda story about the ungrateful animals who refuse medical help from the wonderful people who caused their injuries. Sources are army press release and several near-identical press parrotings of it. Utterly unsalvageable tripe. Zero^talk 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear on what reliable secondary source this POV assertion of propaganda is based, however even if true - articles may cover notables pieces of propaganda - e.g. The Flower Girl - the subject matter being or not being propaganda doesn't have any connection with notability. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can see better than most editors that this is cheap propaganda. It is also non-notable propaganda. Your comparison with The Flower Girl is completely ridiculous. Zero^talk 11:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:GNG as multiple sources exist and WP:NOTCLEANUP --Shrike (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. The article contains several INDEPTH reports from NEWSORGs. Continuing coverage in a non-news context - [41][42][43]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Hopelessly POV. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially propaganda. Also, consider speedy per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. nableezy - 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No such basis for speedy deletion. The article was created prior to the ARBPIA3 case - so was and is not a 500/30 vio.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see beat it by a few months. Then delete as propaganda remains my !vote. nableezy - 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional sources to the page. Passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr MShabazz, hopeless propaganda, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is reliable sourced. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So don't use it, or its brother, WP:I just like it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN article has been expanded and tweaked for tone. It is WP:RS to INDEPTH coverage. Sources brought by Iceqhiz above still need to be added, but it meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors seem to take issue with the field-hospital being propaganda. Without going there, the coverage of this field-hospital in reliable sources, however, is not propaganda, and makes this notable. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as this looks as if its going to be kept, someone may like to include a sentence or two in the Erez Crossing article? ps. really just wanted to be part of an extended protected afd:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - oops, its just been pointed out to me that its already there ... guess i need some zzzzzzs. :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda Alex-h (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not comment about whether this is propaganda or not; instead, discuss whether it is notable and based on reliable sources, and whether can be made neutral if it isn't sufficiently neutral.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I wasnt commenting on if the subject was propaganda. I was saying our article is propaganda. nableezy - 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been cleaned up, propaganda and narrative spinning removed. It is reliable sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient for GP:GNG and that the requirements of WP:PROF are also not met. Sandstein 14:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Alex O. Vasilescu[edit]

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

The article is likely written by the subject and reads like advertisement. It basically claims that the subject is notable for her PhD research. Whereas an individual in exceptional cases can be notable just for their PhD research, it is clearly not our policy that all PhD students of top universities are notable, and I do not see any ~~education~~ indication that the subject was doing any research after the graduation, thus clearly failing WP:PROF. Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The subject introduced a new area of research in multiple fields. Thus, it meets the very first criteria of WP:PROF. The article is not an advertisement, but it explains the research insight that has lead to the development of a new area of research and to today's innovations. Research continued after the 2009 PhD in academia and in industry.Alexmov —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Alexmov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. On the face of it this article would appear to pass both WP:PROF#C1 for highly cited publications [44] and WP:GNG for heavy media coverage of that same research. And in fact I started to write a "keep" comment saying so, and pointing out that despite the badly written and promotional text of the article, AfD is not cleanup. But it does appear to be true that she is notable only for her student work (split into multiple publications, but all on the same general topic). Since completing her Ph.D. in 2009 she has done essentially nothing in the way of academic publishing [45] and has dropped out of academia to become science officer at a startup, per her CV [46]. And much of the article appears to be copied and pasted from that cv. So there's a case to be made here for WP:BIO1E and (because of the copyvio, not just the bad writing) WP:TNT. I'm holding off deciding for myself which way to go for now in the hope that more discussion here can clarify the case first. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding later: This also appears (from its editor's name) to be an undisclosed WP:AUTOBIO, more reason to bring in WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond my understanding how reviewers who have commented here tried to bash her and not even give this a chance. For one thing, she is an established person in the field who has 3000 citations. Most recently, she has been elected as one of the chairs of the CVPR, the most impactful conference in the engineering and computer science combined . This is a great testimony of the fact that her research contributions are recognized in her field. Please judge fairly and put away your egos and biases. This is Wikipedia! Ahatamiz (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Ahatamiz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regarding WP:TNT Happy to delete all! Thank you for all your comments. -- Alexmov —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, starting a new area of research in multiple fields, ie. redefining problems from different fields, is hardly a single event. Alexmov (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cut the article way, way back, to a stub that looks in principle legitimate and not promotional. XOR'easter (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Any MIT alumni in the area? It looks like the Technology Review piece from 2003 is only readable with a subscription. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the MIT TR article: http://www2.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=310 Alexmov (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that TR100 was awarded because of the introduction of a specialized form of mathematics, called tensor algebra, for face recognition, extracting human motion signatures and synthesizing new textures. In other words, Vasilescu introduced tensor algebra to the field of computer vision (TensorFaces, Human Motion Signatures), graphics(TensorTextures, Human Motion Signatures) and machine learning. Alexmov (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vasilescu's introduction of the tensor paradigm to computer vision, computer graphics, machine learning and tensor algebra extension is not a promotional statement, but an undeniable verifiable fact. Alexmov (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:GNG. Alexmov (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexmov, you have dominated the discussion heretofore, you are allowed only one !vote on an AfD, and your username gives you the appearance of being the subject (if so, you are in violation both of the requirement that you declare any conflict of interest and our guidelines against autobiographies, and if not, you are in violation of our user name policy). I have struck your comment and reverted your recent unsourced additions to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I have added the relevant source. Alexmov (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David, if you would rather add the relevant source yourself rather than me doing it. Here it is "Keck Futures Initiative"., feel free to search for Vasilescu on the page. Alexmov (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I voted to Keep after the changes made by the user XOR made and it is my only vote. If you look above, I was willing to go along with delete, but did not vote one way or another. I assume you are not trying to silence me, are you? Alexmov (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  It is just pretty clear that you are the subject of the article, and therefore your opinion on whether it should be kept is irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Yet, I was also happy to delete the entire article, and did so, but someone reveted the changes.Alexmov (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alexmov, you have conspicuously failed to answer the question of whether it is the COI and Autobiography guidelines or the user naming policy that you are in violation of. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  David Eppstein, I have scanned the relevant articles, and I have not violated the Autobiography guidelines or the user naming policy. Alexmov (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - If "Alexmov" = "M. Alex O. V." then you have violated autobio, as you have made many edits to M. Alex O. Vasilescu. If "Alexmov" ≠ "M. Alex O. V." then you are in violation of the policy against names that impersonate other people. Please explain how it is possible to not violate either one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If "Alexmov" = "M. Alex O. V." then the contents of the autobio guideline would indeed apply. If "Alexmov" ≠ "M. Alex O. V." then a quick search on google would show that there are many people with that name. David, I hope this is fun for you. :-) Alexmov (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - "If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. ... If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note After reading through this carefully, and having the discussion relisted while doing so, I am inclined to discount pretty much all of the commentary except that from David Eppstein and the OP (Ymblanter). -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure about this. On the face of it, publications in ICPR/CVPR along with TensorFaces being mentioned in the handbook of Biometrics by Anil Jain is a positive. On the other hand, I don't see much coverage and hardly research after ~2010. I would be willing to having an article solely based on the work alone, provided the contribution something which is widely notable (such as Eigenface). Not casting a vote at the moment, but will look at this later.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The product (TensorFaces) may be notable, but does not imply notability of creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. I'm also very uncomfortable with the clear COI problems that are arising. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as as explained in my comment above. The main problem is lack of coverage. I would have been OK with an article (even without too much coverage), provided the publication of TensorFaces was widely notable. It seems to have been noticed, but I won't call it widely notable. I don't see a pass for WP:PROF#C1--DreamLinker (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it again and I am unfortunately not convinced. Apart from lack of coverage, I also checked the h-index which seems to be 16 according to Google Scholar. This is somewhat on the low side given that Computer Vision/Biometrics is a high citation field. Most career researchers who are working for ~15 years have an h-index > 40. I don't see a criteria which can satisfy WP:PROF.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Women often have unorthodox academic careers in technical fields. Her work was not a two or three year thesis project finished with nothing else done later. She first published in 1991. She received her master's degree from MIT in 1997. Twelve years later, in 2009, she received her PhD from the University of Toronto. During that 12 year period she left to work in the New York University and MIT media labs and published papers before writing her thesis. Those papers by now are highly cited and continue to be cited steadily to this day. She has not "dropped out" of academics. She holds a staff position at UCLA and teaches courses. Like many academics she also is part of a small consulting firm. Is she being penalized for having had a promotional Wikipedia article? The articles of many male academics start out that way too. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eppstein. GS h-index of 16 not enough to pass WP:Prof in this very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Geoff Hinton, Amnon Shashua, Demetri Terzopoulos, David Fleet, Allan Jepson signed off on the dissertation that has the following first sentence: "This thesis introduces a multilinear algebraic framework for computer graphics, computer vision, and machine learning, particularly for the fundamental purposes of image synthesis, analysis, and recognition. " In other words, that is not a promotional statement contratry to doubts casts by David Eppstein who has no expertise in this field. The prior statement is not meant to cast aspersion on David's knowledge and expertise in his own area of research. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: h-index is a type of productivity measure and not a measure of the value of one's contribution. Alexmov (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

h-index is measure of not only productivity, but also impact of the contributions. For academics, this is an indicator of notability. A higher h-index indicates that on an average, multiple papers have had a high impact. Given that vision/biometrics is a high citation field, an h-index of 16 is on the low side.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any rule of thumb like h-index needs to be used carefully. It does not work well if a researcher has made an impact while writing only a few papers. Her top 16 papers with citations of (888 432 304 247 212 194 187 173 161 117 37 32 22 20 17 16) give an h-index of 16. Citations of (50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 37 32 22 20 17 16) would have given the same h-index but imply a very different impact. She has 5 papers with over 200 citations. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is certainly valid, but this BLP looks like a flash in the pan. One can count citations, but h-index gives an indication of sustained achievement over time. Time will tell if the initial impact, most of which is co-authored, is reinforced. Wikipedia can wait. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 17 February 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.

I typed this in the section, but by the time I hit return the page disappeared:

Contributions of co-authors: Xxanthippe, counting the number of single versus co-authored papers is not the correct criteria for determining who is the driving force behind the tensor research direction. You are discounting that the first paper that introduced tensor algebra for modeling cause-and-effect in computer vision, computer graphics and machine learning was single-authored, and appeared in print in 2001 and 2002 (Human Motion Signature work). Additionally, the second sentence in a very diplomatic disertation acknowledgement section, "Although initially resisting the direction of my research, he (D. Terzopoulos) eventually became its biggest supporter", leaves no doubt at the identity of the person that was the driving force behind this line of work versus the person that "resisted" and "eventually" become a "supporter". Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Importance vs Citations: TensorFaces garnered 888 citations, while a tensor survey paper by Kolda and Bader in which Vasilescu and Terzopoulos are cited every where garnered 4892 citations. If one used citation counts, the survey paper is more than five times more important than TensorFaces, a paper that re-framed a vision problem and modeled cause-and-effect as a tensor problem. Furthermore, survey papers are often citations in liu of relevant papers, since it is a lazy way of referencing relevant work. Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Importance vs Indices: Employing citations and indices, while expedient, it is not only a flawed approach to determining importance, it is an abdication of independent critical thinking, and it merely gives more people the opportunity to have an opinion without doing indepenent due diligence, yet having the false impression of being informed. For example, the moment a survey paper is written, it will naturally end up "stealing" citations from prior relevant papers, but without impacting papers written after the survey. Thus, citation and index measures will be doubly compromised. If one wanted to determines importance, one ought to also look at the citation count of papers that were directly influenced by some initial paper, such as TensorFaces. In other words, does the follow-up work that was influenced by TensorFaces/Human Motion Signatures resulted in highly cited papers? Any index that does not also look at the citation count of follow-up work, it is not a measure of importance, although even if such an index existed, it would simply pushes down citation/index problem to second order effects. These type of shorcuts are highly flawed. Alexmov (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to Delete was based on and influenced by David Eppstein, someone that offered no evidence for doubting contributions listed in the article and who is not an expert in the field. Do not delude yourself, what took place here is called mob voting, and clearly very biased. Alexmov (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tone 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Kleiser[edit]

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

Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argento. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 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.