Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 February	26 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cahen[edit]

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

Has lacked independent RS since creation in March 2008. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above. Actaudio (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of google hits for his name but they are mostly credits-related listings or music purchase sites that confirm his proficiency as an active, working professional, but nothing that I could find of significant independent coverage in reliable sources that indicates notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find really any RS to justify keeping this. The article has existed for a long time as well without them, so people have had plenty of time to add them if they existed, but they sadly do not. Cindlevet (talk) 21:54, 3 March 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) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Inside the Chrysalis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Unsourced OR, and an internet search doesn't bring up much in the way of reliable independent sources... about the most reliable is this from the Sydney Morning Herald, but it appears to be nothing more than a gig listing [1]. The band split up a decade ago and evolved into Dedderz, but there's nothing to indicate that this current band is any more notable – an interview on a radio show [2] seems to be the biggest publicity so far. A redirect or merge to the only notable ex-member Melissa Dunphy is a possibility, but it should be noted that the only source connecting Dunphy to this band is a passing mention in a university newspaper [3], reprinted word for word on Dunphy's own website [4]. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I see no reason to merge or redirect elsewhere. Like the nominator, I can find no reliable sources beyond self-promotional sites, gig listings, and typical retail/streaming sites that merely list the existence of their albums. I also can find no reliable sources stating that they really opened for the more notable bands listed in the first paragraph, except for mirror sites that are copies of this article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', Fails WP:BAND,and no notability Alex-h (talk) 13:03, 2 March 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 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Beach[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No sources whatsoever (ditto the articles for their two albums), just OR on the part of an almost entirely SPA editor regarding articles related to this band. There's one article from 2007 on Blabbermouth that just says they were regarded as a hot new act by Metal Hammer magazine and that they were recording new material [5], but that's the only thing I can find of note about them – there are a couple more passing mentions on Blabbermouth as part of festival line-ups. The band appear to have split up late 2014/early 2015 as their social media goes dead around this time, and lead singer Jonas Karsten now appears to be recording solo material under the name Musta Jonas. Unless there is something in Finnish print media I can't find anything that would qualify this band for a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the band's two albums, as they are also unsourced and both fail WP:NALBUM, with no reliable independent sources found:

Delete: a bit of crafty googling couldn't come up with a single RS covering the band. Fails WP:BAND. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources not mentioned by the OP that can be found are event-websites that advertize their gigs, nothing in Finnish either. --Pudeo (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promotional. Actaudio (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (the band and the two albums). The band's article is an attempt at promotion, and I also can find no reliable coverage beyond brief listings of their existence and their presence at a few festivals. Meanwhile I can find no reviews or news coverage for the albums, which are merely listed in the usual retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:37, 27 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. Tone 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beijer Electronics[edit]

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

Promotion (advertisment) SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all "promotion" is not a valid reason for deletion, problems should be fixed instead of deleted. Second, the company clearly reaches WP:GNG. Here are the articles mentioning the company in Dagens industri, articles in Affärsvärlden, a stock analysis in Svenska Dagbladet, articles in Sydsvenskan and some in Veckans Affärer, all of them respected publications in Sweden and reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well... when I firstly found the article and searched in google, all sources I found were from the company itself. I thought that the company isnt notable and fails significant coverage and that the article in wikipedia was a free advertisment for the company. I will wait for more editors to comment on this.-SharabSalam (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've got rid of some of the worst promotional language. Agree with Sjö regarding notability. /Julle (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job by Sjö on finding all those sources, several of which appear to meet CORPDEPTH. I'd say this passes NCORP quite easily, it should be possible to address any PROMO issues with the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company appears to be notable and there are lots of links available. Agree with Sjö's comment. Legion X (talk) 19:44, 1 March 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 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Wright (baseball)[edit]

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

Was deprodded, but doesn't meet WP:GNG, neither does he meet WP:GRIDIRON, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Per WP:NCOLLATH, a person is notable if they were inducted into that sport's hall of fame. Article claims he was inducted in the Virginia Tech hall of fame, I'm not sure if that counts as "that sport's" however, which is why I'm leaning delete. If someone could clarify what they think the meaning of point 3 2 on NCOLLATH means I might change my mind. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the hall of fame in this instance would be the College Football Hall of Fame. Can you imagine if every college's hall of fame were automatically eligible? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in a school's individual hall of fame doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Most of the sources, one of which is literally his being confirmed as dead by the federal government, are primary or don't support WP:GNG. best, GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 26 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 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Winkel[edit]

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

If she were a Playmate of the Month in American Playboy, I’d simply redirect it. But there are no reliable sources out there about her (and whatever was in the Dutch Telegraph link no longer exists). All she’s allegedly done is a few regional editions of men’s magazines. No career to expand upon. Trillfendi (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity page, page appears to be possible WP:COI. Page creator is HSPWin, page title is Hester Winkel; what a strange coincidence. Also fails WP:NMODEL. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MODEL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 4 March 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 20:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton, Mississippi hostage standoff[edit]

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

sadly, another shooting but this is pretty MILL for the US and in the grand scheme of things hasn’t received the necessary coverage to meet inclusion and likely won’t. Also WP:NOTNEWS Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now, this is a breaking news event that is way, way premature for a Wikipedia article. Authorities are still trying to figure out what happened. There are few, if any, encyclopedic facts not already covered in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, coverage at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 is enough as of now. Home Lander (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A noteworthy, yet unfortunate event with multiple reliable third party sources. Could definitely use expansion but meets notability criteria. Tinton5 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's awfully WP:RAPID for a deletion decision. (for that matter, it was an overly RAPID article creation.) Urging User:TrueFalcon to return and improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper! It’s only been 9 days. If this sustains coverage over time I could see refunding it. Trillfendi (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage mainly. Suspect dead, domestic dispute. Fairly WP:MILL and unlikely to have any long term impact except on the families and friends of those killed. Also unlikely to be the only hostage situation ever in this town so title is not very good. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS for lacking longterm notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS not relevant as this is not a routine event. However, when I evaluate coverage here (for a possible WP:RAPID !vote) - I see this being in the national news cycle close to the event (16 Feb), and essentially no coverage from 21 Feb (and even the tail end - is local news). Thus - we do not, at this time, have persisting coverage and we are dealing with a single news cycle item. My own personal crystal ball tells me (after the requsite dusting, etc.) that as the suspect (as well as all of the victims - no injuries) is dead, future coverage is less likely than in an event with surviving victims and perpetrators (personal stories, trial, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage has not been sustained.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting my two cents in as I am the one who created this article. There are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that have little if any news coverage a week or more after the event. For instance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancún_nightclub_shooting. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not a valid arguement as this was not something that just happens everyday. It is also possible that more information about this incident may come to light in the future. Wikipedia has plenty of articles that cover "news stories", I sincerely feel like I am being picked on because I am new to editing on Wikipedia.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Truth Falcon (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented about anything other than the content. As far as the article goes, I think you're incorrect that "this is not something that just happens every day." This is a pretty standard occurrence throughout the US and other places. I don't see how something that has only received, passing, minor coverage is notable and I'll also note the following: 2/25, 2/27, 2/25, 2/23 and that's just the US, in the last week. WP:OSE might be worth a read too.Praxidicae (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the relevance in those news stories at all, everyone survived in those. Please show me how 5 people being killed in a hostage situation is a "standard occurrence" in the US. Maybe it is in other parts of the world but it is most definitely not a normal thing in the US.Truth Falcon (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NOTNEWS. If newspapers are still reporting on this in six or 12 months, or if it becomes the subject of a book or film, we can revisit. But at this point it's highly unlikely that this event will receive much, if any, further coverage, so it simply doesn't have the lasting notability for an encyclopedia. Bradv🍁 14:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Legion X (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This stuff happens every day around the world. Utterly unremarkable and not notable. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 2 March 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 Malankara Metropolitan. Anything useful may be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Throne of Malankara See[edit]

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

The claims that the primates of Malankara starting from Marthoma I were enthroned using this particular chair are uncorroborated. There is no evidence that this chair is the one used in 1653 AD or in the consecrations of subsequent primates of Malankara. In spite of the article being up over a decade, the author(s) have failed to provide even a single reference of contemporary records that verify their claims. As such, they remain claims, not historical facts. While the events of episcopal consecration are undisputed, the claims that a specific chair was used without even a single reliable source or contemporary document to back up the claim simply falls short of an article worthy of taking up space in Wikipedia Swordofcherubim (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect to Apostolic Throne, or failing that, Malankara Metropolitan. As a non-notable chair it fails WP:GNG. Article also constitutes chaircruft. The title 'throne' isn't necessarily paired with a physical throne. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as I need to re-think. The article appears to have undergone a major scope change at some point in its history; from apostolic throne to physical throne. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apostolic Throne. In 2008 the article looked very different, with a different scope and title; so there may be a topic and content worth salvaging in old revisions. All I can say for sure is that the POV-war has resulted in an unsourced article about a chair, which appears to fail WP:GNG. The content is of no use to readers so the page should be redirected until quality content can take its place. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- It seems far more to the point to merge this to an article in the office, probably Malankara Metropolitan. The throne can be used to illustrate that article and the other material can be worked in. The important thing is the office of metropolitan, not the chair on which he may occasionally sit ceremonially. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: In order to be 'worked in', the content would have to be verifiable. Have you any sources to demonstrate that?

Also its straightforward to add the picture to the 'Malankar Metropolitan' article because the image has its own separate CC licensing. No merge needed. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-- to Malankara Metropolitan.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A !vote requires reasoning to hold any weight. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:34, 12 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-^☖ 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. Additionally the article is almost entirely unsourced and fails WP:V. Under the circumstances there is nothing that can be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 5 March 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) 22:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sousse–Kairouan Decauville railway[edit]

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

Dunno if this should be a delete or a merge, but this is about a minor railway line’s time when using one guage versus another. Such upgrading was extremely common, and not remarkable. Qwirkle (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: The article about this railway, which provided passenger transport, should be kept, please. Please feel free to rename it, for instance Sousse–Kairouan railway and add some paragraphs about its use after being re-gauged. I could not find any article into which it should be merged, and find the tone of this discussion very upsetting. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this nomination kind of misses the point. It isn’t that a stretch of railway changed gauge, that’s just an incidental detail. The context (not explicit from the article) and the likely notability is that this was one of the earliest railways in Tunisia (possibly even the earliest, though I’m not sure of that). I’d like to ping members of Wikiproject Tunisia to see if anyone can contribute, and search for some sources. I think this railway is probably notable and will see what I can find. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be missing another point. Decauville (and its knock-offs) was a dead-standard approach to all kinds of transportation and material handling needs from 1875 (hadda look that up to be sure) until just past WWI worldwide, and lasted much further in some other areas. I’ve seen it in active agricultural use, and I’m not that old. I’d bet this was only one of many major uses of the stuff in Tunisia.

Also, realignments are also rather common, and this is the line which, eventually, made its way out to Kasserine. The (realigned) route is still very much in use, and played a considerable part in some historical events as well. We don’t need 17 different stubs popping up, like the train wreck, if you’ll excuse the expression, around Alcatraz. Qwirkle (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I don't think I understand the Alcatraz analogy. If your point is that Decauville railways were commonplace and we don't need an article about every single one of them that makes sense to me. Nevertheless I think that the context of this particular one is important. France invaded Tunisia in April 1881 so this must have been one of the earliest pieces of colonial infrastructure, and absolutely key to the occupation of the interior. I've found it wasn't the earliest railway in the country but it looks like the first colonial railway. Still looking. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz is one of those subjects that honestly deserves four or five articles, so it has...Hell, I dunno. At least a dozen. Maybe 20. They include three or four completely unremarkable buildings, and a rock. (Yep. you read that right. Yer basic litorral boulder.)

That said, I may have jumped the gun on this one: this might be the original major military field use of portable light railways, and quite notable as such. Qwirkle (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources establish enough notability. This is an area with poor coverage, so articles on the subject (railways in Tunisia) are to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds like damning with faint praise, doesn’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: No, it is not. Everything in the article is referenced. Just stating facts, coverage of railway in Tunisia is sparse, and artilces such as this, which is bordering on start class, are to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's a splendid article with references, at least in comparison to hundreds of other unreferenced articles on mere stations, not even whole sections or lines. Unsigned comment by Rhadow 02:14, 26 February 2019‎

WP:OSE? Qwirkle (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Qwirkle, OSE applies, in this case positively. The topic of this article is notable as measured by the number of good references. It does compare positively to other unreferenced articles. The encyclopedia would be better, IMO, with this article and without the others. Rhadow (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can certainly agree that every bus stop, whistle halt, and seasonal cattle loading platform does not need to be imortalized on Wiki, as they too often are. Having dug a little more into the line’s history, this might be a keeper per se. Qwirkle (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a historic railway line to "every bus stop, whistle halt, and seasonal cattle loading platform" is simply an apples to oranges red herring and not helpful to this discussion. Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I havent seen where anyone was doing that. Where did you? Qwirkle (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, by you.Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the edit where I wrote Having dug a little more into the line’s history, this might be a keeper per se. and That said, I may have jumped the gun on this one: this might be the original major military field use of portable light railways, and quite notable as such.? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are sensitive. You're making attacks at editors[6] who simply disagree with your AfD - in this case that's everybody. Take a breather and move on. Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive? Because I point out you obviously didn’t read what you were allegedly replying to? Tubular. Qwirkle (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Qwirkle, I doubt you'll find agreement with your line, "every whistle stop." If a village has a halt listed in the national database (scheduled or flagged), its article is secure forever, whether or not the article has a reference. Propose a deletion and all sorts of cultural brickbats will fall on your head. Rhadow (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don’t expect agreement; I’m merely pointing out that it is nuts, and contrary to an attempt to create an encyclopedia. There’s no reason why that sort of thing, if it must be kept, can’t be rolled up into some actually notable subject. Qwirkle (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a verified railway line with historic coverage.Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a general rule, all railway lines of any length are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might wanna rewrite this; it has two potential meanings, and one of them is that every single minor spur not owned by the railroad it connects to is notable. “Of any length” can be taken literally as “of any length whatsoever.”

That said, plowing through some French and Italian sources, this does appear to be the Ur-feldbahn, so to speak, and deserves coverage as such. Qwirkle (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want to rewrite it. It's perfectly obvious what I meant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a historic railway with sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta keep the stats up, eh? Qwirkle (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with K.e.coffman. Legion X (talk) 19:48, 1 March 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) 00:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EPartner Consulting Ltd[edit]

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

I uncover no sources to support inclusion under WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless they come up with sources. I've looked per WP:Before and this seems thin to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also note that there is an inconsistency between the article's name (which uses a capital "E", for "EPartner Consulting Ltd") and the text, which uses a small "e" for "ePartner Consulting Ltd". But I don't think that effected my searches. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that this was a new editor that drafted the article, and that the approval of its move to main space was by someone (User: AlanIngram) who actually has very limited experience, and whose main editing concerned TeleForm. These histories are rife with WP:COI, but I only have circumstantial proof. The sourcing and article formats come from the same cookie cutter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm which provides resale and consultancy on niche products. Notability is not inherited from the commercial history of the firms which have offered these products and I am not seeing evidence to demonstrate that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 26 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. Tone 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Kostek[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Kostek is a cheerleader who became one of the swimsuit models for Sports Illustrated. Most coverage comes from Sports Illustrated itself, her local hometown papers, her own Instagram page, or other such primary sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m surprised someone actually created an article for her when her notability right now is being Gronkowski’s girlfriend and a Patriots cheerleader. The sources don’t help the case either—it relies on Instagram posts. If she gets independent notability in the future then someone could redo the article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won't cure cancer, but she easily passes wp:n. Markvs88 (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How so? “Rob Gronkowski’s girlfiend” isn’t notability. Notability is not inherited. Notwithstanding the fact that SI Swimsuit appearance is not enough for NMODEL itself. None of the sources for her hosting endeavors are reliable or independent. Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because after reading the article and the five highly reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, People Magazine, New Haven Register, plus the two below) I now know far more about her than I would ever care to. (Fair disclosure: I hate the Patriots!) Further several of the other sources (Fox61, Dune Jewelry, Fashionweekonline and Instagram) show active in her career, so the article does not attempt inherit notability. As Captain Eek mentions below, she is easy to find in other legit sources such as the Boston Herald, and here she is in Maxim...[7]. The Wiki-ruler is for two independent, third party sources with significant coverage. This article more than has that. She's definitely notable. Not going to cure cancer, but notable. Markvs88 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone doesn't have to have appeared in the NYTimes to be notable, but shes made the Boston Herald – which is more than just a hometown paper. There certainly seems to be notable independent coverage of her, and a significant number of sources. Appears to pass WP:BIO, and the page doesn't appear to have any BLP issues. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, since the angle covered by the Boston Herald was about a Patriots' cheerleader making an SI appearance, that pretty much is hometown coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment When do we start purging all NYT, NY Post and Daily News citations from every article that takes place within the New York Metropolitan Area, then? Markvs88 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She did get attention because of who she is/was dating but if you look into the sources (as in click on them and read them), only a handful of them mention her boyfriend, and mostly as an afterthought. Almost all of her modelling work, especially her SI Swimsuit win (the magazine's first social media-based open casting call), was all about her. I get it, most know her as the dude's girl but she does have significant work and notability herself to merit a page. Maxen Embry (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Markvs88. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously as per her own well documented contributions, and as noted above..Netherzone (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per the comments by Markvs88. Though, I believe we look for at least three independent WP:RS which I would say we have here. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clear keep as per Markvs88 and Maxen Embry. Z359q (talk) 14:42, 2 March 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 18:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 072[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of being noteworthy for a stand-alone article or even a mention in wikipedia, nobody significant killed or nothing significant badly damaged or destroyed in the accident. Just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails notability for an aircraft accident/incident article. - Samf4u (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This accident is important in terms of looking at the safety record of the 747-400 as it was nearly a hull-loss. - tdhla1 (talk) 2:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I cant see anything that makes it different from all the "nearly" accidents that happen all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very minor accident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be plausibly notable (an aircraft ending up in water), however I don't see the SIGCOV for this. It is already on the airport article (as a brief one line blurb). Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 28 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 Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

LambdaKnight (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Note - I tried to look into the COI. The subject of the biography doxxed the nominator on Facebook. From what I gathered, the COI the nominator has disclosed is that the nominator is acquainted with persons the subject of the article allegedly harassed. This is a tenuous COI as awareness of an incident isn't necessarily a conflict. There doesn't appear to be any benefit to the nominator regardless of the outcome of the AfD. Nevertheless all disclosure is good. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:05, 2 March 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. This AfD is of a length and with a respectable level of participation that is almost evenly divided such that I do not believe a relist would be likely to bring us to a consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick Fannon[edit]

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

He's a minor figure of little notability in the RPG industry. This is likely a vanity page. LambdaKnight (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — LambdaKnight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there are references listed on the page with enough notability to pass AfDs of similar articiles. More to the point LambdaKnight is by definition a Single Purpose Account whoes only contributions have been to disrupt this page. Web Warlock (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of activity on this account is mostly because this is the first time I've done something that needed an account. All of the previous corrections I have made were done without an account. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of activity is not reason. It remains that the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia is to get this article removed. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all of my other activity has been done without an account. This is the only contribution that I've wanted to make to Wikipedia that required an account. The current singular nature of this account is simply a consequence of Wikipedia's rules on what you can and cannot do without an account. LambdaKnight (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What IP address did you edit under? Right now this looks exactly like a single purpose account created for the sole purpose of getting this page deleted. You have not made any other edits as far as I can tell since May 2018. Web Warlock (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dig up my list of dynamically assigned IPs from my ISP since whenever. And you are either the subject of the article or a friend of Sean Patrick Fannon as I have now been attacked with this same argument by Sean Patrick Fannon himself on Facebook. This calls into question your objectivity in this discussion. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My editing history here is well established over the last 14 years. Including Working on AfDs exactly like this one. However it does seem that you have a conflict of interest here and prior engagement with the subject[8]. Web Warlock (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Didn't you also just demonstrate you also have a conflict of interest here and prior engagement with the subject? LambdaKnight (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Facebook post is particularly concerning, especially if this AFD came to being as a result of a dispute with the subject. BOZ (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice the time of that post is after this AfD was started. That post was in response to me creating this AfD. Noting the similarity in argument bewteen Web Warlock and the post, I can only conclude that Sean Patrick Fannon and Web Warlock are the same person or friends. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would be wrong. There are plenty of people here who actually know who I am in real life and even a sloppy Google search would turn up the answers. No, I am not Sean Patrick Fannon. I know of him of course, but I have been editing RPG pages and saving pages from deletion for over a decade here, I know every RPG designer. A simple look at my User page would reveal that. Web Warlock (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I have better things to do than to play internet sleuth. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am simply undertaking these actions as suggested by Cullen³²⁸ and Collect in Talk:Sean_Patrick_Fannon. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see niche sources, if they’re even reliable. Winning awards isn’t the barometer of notability. I don’t see him meeting GNG at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources introduced by Web Warlock to help meet the GNG, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Biographical information is unsourced. All sources are either industry insider awards or interviews on random industry insider blogs. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Your vote is when you made the nomination. – The Grid (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and struck the second !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was under the impression this wasn't strictly a vote and were simply arguments for/against the deletion, but I guess I was mistaken. LambdaKnight (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly a vote (hence the ! before the vote) but showing which side you're on helps the closer to clearly read the overall consensus when they close the article. You're free to continue commenting. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I see at most one source which I think might count, and it's one of the book sources. None of the sources which have been added are helpful to determine notability. The article is basically a giant CV and may fail WP:PROMO regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This observation is incorrect. Designers & Dragons is a reliable source, the ENie awards contribute to WP:CREATIVE, and so do the Guest of Honor appearances (per CREATIVE, "The person is regarded as an important figure" within their creative domain). WP:N is met. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the author of Savage Rifts, Fanon already meets NCREATIVE since the former has been reviewed in Geeknative and Wired, both reliable sources. The Designers & Dragons reference shows that the subject can be reliably sourced apart from reviews of their work, which is the only constraint on an NCREATIVE notability claim. (NOTINHERITED, for those keeping score at home, means that works are not necessarily Notable because of their creators, but creators ARE notable because of their works.)

There is no policy-based argument for deletion, so this really ought to be closed as Keep. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: 18 new references have been added since the AFD debate. I have at least 3-4 more. Web Warlock (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those pass WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. Some of them are podcast interviews (which don't pass WP:GNG), some of them are written by him, none of them appear to cover him significantly. The Wired article is basically an extended interview. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential CoI: I have been informed[9] that LambdaKnight has a potential WP:BLPCOI due to previous engagements with the subject of this article. Such engagement corresponds to the creation of this users account. I am requesting an Admin look into this. Web Warlock (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick Fannon went through the effort of connecting my real life Facebook account with my Wikipedia account and accused me of attacking his page. As I was tagged on Facebook, I was notified by Facebook and I have responded to his post. The post he made occurred after this AfD and I have had no prior contact with Sean Patrick Fannon. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential CoI: The post referenced by Web Warlock above was made after I started this AfD and uses a very similar argument that Web Warlock stated in this discussion. It seems that Web Warlock is either the subject of the article itself or very closely engaged with the subject of the article. While an admin is looking into any potential conflicts of interest, I request you look in to their possible CoI. LambdaKnight (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, independent sources can be furnished that devote significant coverage to this person as a person. The article now has a "Personal life" section that is entirely unreferenced. That is a violation our core content policy of verifiability. If he has created notable games, then he can be mentioned in articles about those games. At this time, I see no evidence that this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the complaint then why not just delete that section? He is mentioned by name in a few scholarly works about RPGs. So there is that. Web Warlock (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328's !vote is not policy-compliant. As the subject of the article is discussed in multiple Reliable Sources, and has authored multiple works that meet notability criteria, he is by definition notable himself. Notable does not equal famous. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of a person. If we deleted the biographical information, then the article is pointless. Newimpartial, please point me to one or two reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. Passing mentions are insufficient, Webwarlock. Significant coverage of the person is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the criteria, Cullen328. There is no requirement that the RS discuss the person at length outside the context of their work. The subject of this article has authored multiple works which have each been multiply reviewed, and Designers & Dragons among other sources reliably attests to the person. NCREATIVE AND WP:N are met. We can have a WP article without the "Personal life" section, if they cannot be sourced: indeed, WP has many, many such articles. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what's being asked for. The coverage that's "inside" the context of their work doesn't even pass WP:GNG at the moment. If you could show some sources with significant coverage of the individual, that would be helpful and probably swing my vote as well as, but without speaking for them, Cullen328's. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the contention is that Shaintair and Savage Rifts are notable games, and that Evil Beagle Games is a notable company, then why are there no Wikipedia articles about them? Two are red links, Newimpartial, and the other is a redirect to a broader article that does not even mention Savage Rifts. You can't claim that WP:NCREATIVE is met without providing convincing evidence that things mentioned as a person's major accomplishment are notable, and the way to do that is by writing policy compliant articles about their accomplishments. As for WP:GNG, there isn't a single reference to a reliable, independent source that devotes significant coverage to this person. Quotes and interviews are not independent coverage and passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Rifts has been reviewed by GeekNative and Wired; it is therefore notable. Shaintar received mutiple ENie awards: it is therefore notable. I don't have to write a WP article about either to make that notability real; that isn't the way Notability works in WP, Also, it isn't a question of the sources in the article (although Designers & Dragons is a reliable one); it is a question of whether they exist. The reviews most certainly do, and so does other independent coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ENies appear to be a blog, and the 2017 listing brings up a "page no longer exists" error. As an outside observer, it does not seem like a notable award. The Wired article I've seen just interviews him on his game. It does not pass WP:GNG for the purposes of this article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an interview, but rather a report. And the ENnie Awards are indeed notable, to judge from the WP article about them. Newimpartial (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if, for the sake of argument, it's not an interview of Fannon, it's not sufficiently independent of the creator to be considered a true review. SportingFlyer T·C 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia article about GeekNative and I consider the ENnie Awards to be of dubious notability. Just a typical industry insider backscratching award like dentists, accountants, real estate agents and insurance brokers award to each other at their annual conventions. Wired is obviously a reliable source in the abstract, but the article you link to consists almost entirely of direct quotes from Fannon with negligible to zero independent reporting about him. That is a very long way from significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. It is essentially an interview. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ENnie Awards have been used in many, many past RPG related AFDs to establish notability. Web Warlock (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might work for the RPG itself, but there's no mention of the game's designer in any of the ENnie links I've seen, and a number of the links don't appear to be reliable sources anyways. I would have serious concerns for assuming notability for a person based on winning a fan vote. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be accurate in your statement if the clients of dentists, accountants, real estate agents and insurance brokers voted on who to give the industry awards to. The Ennies Awards are presented at a convention, but they are not decided by people in the industry to award each other. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, while I have never met or interacted with Sean Patrick Fannon, I have had friends who have accused him of sexual harassment in the past and their story was written about in an external article. My original interaction with this article was regarding that. After discussion, it was determined that the article in question was not of a high enough quality to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. During that discussion, two editors also brought up that the article in its entirety might not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I nominated this article for deletion based on those primarily and believed at the time of nomination that I was acting as impartially as I could. However, after the attacks on my person on Facebook, I cannot be fully certain of my impartiality anymore. 98.245.177.128 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That was me. I'm really not used to logging in here. LambdaKnight (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have just admitted that you originally attempted to delete this page based WHOLLY on your personal feelings and now disclosed CoI. You are further stating that you are continuing to attempt to delete this page but now your personal feelings have nothing to do with your attempt - while continuing to delete other articles of people who spoke out against your actions. I put forth that this all continues to be based on your acknowledged CoI. No matter how strongly a contributor feels, or even how justified those feelings are, Wikipedia articles should not be deleted out of spite.Ceronomus (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added information to this article, specifically information about some women that came forth with accusations of sexual harassment by Sean Patrick Fannon. It was removed and there was a discussion about the quality of the reference I provided. During the discussion, it was noted that the entire article was probably not of sufficient quality. That happened in May. I was reminded of that discussion recently, saw that the page remain virtually unchanged from when that discussion occurred, and simply started the ball rolling to act on that previous discussion. When I first started this discussion, I believed that I was acting as impartially as I could. After I was harassed outside of Wikipedia, I came to doubt that I was as impartial as I originally believed. So, I disclosed that. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article still has no real sources making the person actually notable, and WP:DOXING any Wikipedia editor is improper as well. The arguments for or against deletion have nothing at all to do with personal "real identities" but only with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and !votes based on anything else are improper. Most of the "article" is completely and utterly unsourced to any reliable sources. The only issue here is notability as established in reliable sources, and, on that basis, the article is absolutely deletable. Podcasts are not reliable sources, Period. Collect (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding !vote is not policy compliant, as AfD discussions are always to be based on the available sources in relation to policy, and never simply in the sourcing of the article. As well, the editor appears ignorant of the actual sources under discussion: neither Designers & Dragons, nor Wired, nor GeekNative, nor the ENnie Awards are "podcasts". Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely compliant due to the requirement that subjects be "notable" based on reliable sources and "podcasts" not based on reliable sources do not miraculously become reliable sources. As I have some experience on Wikipedia, especially in the area of BLPs (well over 5,000 edits), I suggest that your attempt at aspersion casting is what is irrelevant to the purposes of AfD discussions (more than 690). https://dwarves.podiant.co/e/360d96739f5c8e/ is also a "podcast". And the "Ennies" are basically a vote tally of fans and nothing more As my experience with RPGs goes back to original AD&D, and knowing one of the early TSR editors. (Also MITSGS where role-playing games were used in the early 1960s). Saying another editor is "ignorant" is not really a great idea in any discussion. Collect (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the sources I have referred to in this AfD have been Designers & Dragons, Wired, GeekNative, and the ENnie Awards. These sources are sufficient to demonstrate Notability per policy, and even were they not, none of them are podcasts. It was an act of AGF for me to assume that you were referring lumping these sources in with podcasts out of ignorance, but if you have another explanation for your error, I would be happy to hear it. Otherwise you are just not hearing why I referred to your !vote as noncompliant - and your chest thumping about your long acquaintance with WP and with OSR RPGs doesn't change that in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that I am damn familiar with AfDs in the past, and, using the standards of Wikipedia in the past, this person is not notable. Citing alphabet soups of essays do not impress me much at all. My !vote was directly on point with regard to notability, and I suggest that your iterated claims otherwise will not impress a closer of this AfD. https://www.geeknative.com/about/ Geek Native is a blog for gamers – for roleplayers – and covers a range of geek friendly interest areas. states in simple English that "Geek Native" is a blog. Using WordPress. WordPress blogs are considered BLOGS at WP:RS/N. That you think a WordPress blog is a "reliable source" means you have not read the RS/N discussions in the past about such blogs. http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/ a self-described BLOG. I assure you that very few "blogs" meet WP:RS at all. Collect (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the puffery above, the ENnie Awards remain awards, rather than a blog. If your objection, Collect, is not to the notability of the award but to the reliability of the documentation, then that can be discussed rationally, but that discussion is not advanced by pretending that because the awards have a blog that they therefore are themselves a blog, which is quite ridiculous.

GeekNative is a self-published source (namely a blog) that is covered by the following carve-out in WP:SPS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of GeekNative has been published professionally by others in this domain, in The Scotsman and elsewhere, and is most certainly "an established expert on the subject matter" of roleplaying. Just as a review by Ken Hite would contribute to notability even if featured in his podcast, so does a GeekNative review. We don't need The Space Gamer to be revived in order to grant reliable reviews to RPGs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear in regards to the ENnie Awards, the page you linked to is the blog of the Ennie awards. It does not say that the awards, themselves, are a blog. Their about page[[10]] states they are an award granting organization with yearly ceremonies. Merely using the word "blog" in the website title to indicate that section is where they post their announcements wouldn't seem to mean that it is only a blog. Can you provide an example of an industry specific award that you feel qualifies for WP:RS? I am new to determining notability and want to familiarize myself with some examples before weighing in. ―Vancian | ✉ 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" for the awards is a blog. I did not find outside sources for them otherwise. The Hugo Awards are also "fan-awarded", and are covered in major reliable sources. The World Science Fiction Society is a real corporate entity, and has a .org website, rather than a wordpress "blog." The "Hugos" get routine coverage in the New York Times. The "ENNies" get no coverage in newspapers. They only get covered at "mynewsdesk.com" (Mynewsdesk is a self-publishing PR firm) listed under "press releases." Any award which only gets press release coverage from itself and its own blog is not a major award. Do you grasp the difference? An "award" which is only found in its own press releases, and an award which gets major RS news coverage are not the same. Collect (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clear enough, thank you. I will look into them more. My own memories of them are that they are more notable than that but that's irrelevant if I cannot find sources. ―Vancian | ✉ 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listed bibliography shows author meets notability requirements for Creative Individuals [WP:AUTHOR] - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or *collective body of work* [emphasis mine]. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." 30 Shaintar and 11 Savage Rifts releases certainly qualify as significant and are only a portion of his collective body of work. That his work has been nominated for 4 ENnies and won one? His work certainly qualifies as "well-known".Ceronomus (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An "award" which is only found in its own press releases" - Tabletop Gaming UK ^[1], Polygon ^[2], Board Game Geek (a blog - but a major news source in the RPG community) ^[3], Geek Native (the notability of this blog is already mentioned above) ^[4], and the list goes on. The ENnies are the largest and most significant RPG industry award - far surpassing things such as the 3 Castles awards or the Rodneys. Ceronomus (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of adding more detail and citations to the ENnie Awards page. If it is going to be used as a notable source then the page on it should be more fleshed out. ―Vancian | ✉ 18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ENnies are regularly and extensively covered by paradigmatic RS Polygon, which would make them notable all by itself. Collect, you might want to back down rather than referring to them again as a podcast (sic). Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking beyond the obvious COI disclosed here (which is not reason to keep or delete - COIs do not invalidate an argument, they only make it suspect) subject is most certainly notable as shown by updated references and bibliography. Ceronomus (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete A bit unsure, I am not Suresh hobbyist pod casts are enough. Also I am a bit iffy that we do not have (for example) page numbers for some of the sources. As well as a few primary sources. And it much of it reads distinctly like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:Author #3, someone is notable if they have created a well-known work or collective body of work. Per the listed bibliography the subject has created a significant body of work and qualifies as notable. The article could use additional citations and more work but should not be delted. Only improved. Working on adding those now. ―Vancian | ✉ 18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few secondary source references to support the "significant collected body of work" claim. ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ―Vancian | ✉ 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the works and references seem to exist in a small walled garden of closely connected publications. There is virtually no coverage by independent secondary sources. ConstantPlancks (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Designers & Dragons, Wired, GeekNative, and the ENnies are not to be found within any "small walled garden of closely connected publications". Charitably, the !vote is not grounded in an understanding of the available sources (or of what a walled garden is) and is therefore not compliant with WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired reference, for example, is in their podcast section and references an episode. They are using their platform as a hosting service for podcasts and is not independent. It's like YouTube and should be treated as such. None of this is covered by general news outlets. In fact, the subject isn't even covered in general gaming outlets like Forbes, Polygon or Kotaku - that's a good indication of lack of notability. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below. The article is curated content within the Wired paywall and is independent of the RPG in question; we are not talking about the Notability of the podcast here. No, pen and paper RPGs are not covered by Forbes and seldom covered by Polygon and Kotaku, but they have their own reliable sources, awards and Guests of Honor recognition. All of those are featured in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, albeit barely. The Wired piece unequivocally passes as one of the two necessary sources (it's in-depth, secondary, independent, WP:RS, and focused on him extensively.) For the second, there's enough multiple independent sources to combine per WP:BASIC; the one paragraph in the Times Free Press, while short, is reasonably comprehensive and combines with the passing coverage of the 2017 ENnies nomination here, and the mention of him as a featured guest at ConCoction here and at Magic City Con here to illustrate minimum notability. EDIT: That said, assuming this is kept, the sources do need to be cleaned up a bit - some of the recently-added ones don't pass WP:RS, and even aside from those there's too much use of WP:PRIMARY sources. But those don't cancel out the usable ones, which are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. --Aquillion (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Wired piece is part of their podcast hosting service (they host the Geeks guide podcast and the written section is a summary provided by the podcasters) and not independent coverage. I believe it's pay-to-play hosting which puts it on par with youtube podcasts. It's also an episode. ConstantPlancks (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to avoid making repeated false statements, Constant, inadvertent as they may be. This source [11] is not in the "podcasts section" of Wired, and the podcasts on Wired are not in any way "pay-to-play hosting" or "on a par with YouTube" - they are presented as curated content, within the Wired paywall, the same as any other column. And there is no need for the Wired story to be "independent" from the podcast - the point is that the story, under the editorial control of Wired, covers the work in question in a non-passing reference, outside of the quotes from the interview, on a RS platform with responsible editorial control. If you can't see this, Constant, you really might want to pull back and drop the hyperbole. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The geeks guide is a podcast. The two hosts are unaffiliated with Wired. Please point to the source that says the podcast is under editorial control of Wired or where the summary of the podcast is written by Wired editors. You say it is without any sources and the "About" simply says it is a podcast. The "About" section also points to this website independent of Wired and lists the people responsible for content (it's not Wired). It says it is produced "for" hosting on Wired but not "by" Wired. The show launched in January 2010. Season One (2010) was produced for Tor.com, the website of a major science fiction book publisher. Season Two (2011) was produced for io9, a science fiction and futurism blog owned by Gawker Media. Seasons Three through Ten (2012-2019) have been produced for Wired.com, the website of the popular tech magazine Wired. Further, it's crowdfunded and they describe the production process. here's what they do: Each episode of Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy takes dozens of hours to produce. We have to brainstorm guests, schedule guests, research guests, read their new work, think up questions, record the interview, edit the interview, transcribe the interview, add links and images to the interview, brainstorm panel topics, research panel topics, produce a panel outline, brainstorm guest geeks, schedule guest geeks, record the panel, edit the panel, upload the audio to Wired, the feed, and YouTube, and post about the episode on Facebook, Twitter, and geeksguideshow.com, etc. There is no editing by Wired. Wired is hosting it. That's it. ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unaffiliated with" is an inaccurate statement, Constant; see for example this listing of "Wired podcasts". The question of who wrote the Wired article that references inter alia the podcast interview is also not germaine - the source only needs to be independent from the game publisher and writer, which it is, not independent from the podcast. It is curated content (not a forum) published within the Wired paywall, and is therefore both independent and reliable.

As I have noted in the RSN discussion, Wired has exercised editorial oversight in bringing the podcast into Wired, whether or not it is involved in "production" per se. This is a fairly common situation in podcasting: for example, the Canadian state broadcaster, the CBC, hosts and distributes under contract the independently produced podcast, "Under the Influence". While I would not expect this to be treated the same as CBC News coverage, I certainly would expect it to be evaluated on WP in the same way as other affiliated current affairs coverage CBC distributes, and not as a SPS: for the CBC or Wired to distribute a podcast is in fact a kind of editorial decision. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does not make the cut for me. Borderline case, at best. I am also amazed at how NCREATIVE is being used.∯WBG^converse 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, WBG? The point of WP:CREATIVE is that people who produce a body of independently recognized work, and who have been recognized by their peers and successors in a creative field, are presumed notable. That is precisely how I have been using CREATIVE above - as intended. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/news/tales-from-the-loop-and-7th-sea-lead-rpg-nominees-for-2017-ennie
^ https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/5/15923872/best-tabletop-rpgs-2017
^ https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/66942/2017-ennie-award-nominees-and-judges-spotlight-win
^ https://www.geeknative.com/60112/ennies-2017-winners/
^ Galaxy, Geek's Guide to the (2017-05-06). "The Bonkers Role-Playing World of 'Rifts' Just Got Even Bigger". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
^ "Black Desert Online: BDO KR Patch Notes Aug 16th - Warrior's new Black Spirit's Rage Skills, Savage Rift reworks". www.invenglobal.com. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
^ Hall, Charlie (2017-07-05). "The best tabletop RPGs of 2017". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

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 speedy renomination. Two of the Keep !votes were largely discounted as their arguments are inconsistent with WP:PAG. However that leaves us with only one comment supporting deletion besides the OP and one Keep that looks weak but not enough to discount. Alas the discussion has been relisted twice. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALBOAN[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest that its widespread works and importance to the Basque nation make this a notable organization. Jzsj (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around more than long enough to know that social relevance is not a criteria for inclusion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The works seem to me to have sufficient independent coverage. Jzsj (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you skip the section "look how good we are", you are left with just the lead with six sources. That is to say: one dead link, an irrelevant link, a passing mention, a related source, a "yes, we have a party and someone is speaking at that party", idem. No in-depth coverage. The Banner talk 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is essentially a religious spam article, cobbled together from many passing and minor mentions of the organization. When I do a Google search for news and book sources, the results do not substantiate GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems to me that it is doing enough to be a notable organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but We do not judge notability based on a subjective feel for the organization: we judge based on reporting in reliable sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has a large number of third party sources. If you feel there is spam in the article, you take it out, not delete the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Without the spam, there is hardly an article left. The Banner talk 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, go ahead and stub-ify it for us.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted, given concern about the first two Keep votes being sufficiently justified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 25 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 18:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glo-Bus[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) 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, reads promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this one folks. Ajf773 (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial creation of two non-notable people. SITH (talk) 14:24, 28 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 18:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crowder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article was previously deleted in AFD and no reason given for its re-creation. Simply adding a little more content with unacceptable sources to the article is not a reason to re-create a deleted article. Although I believe the contesting of the recent speedy was in good faith, I believe it was also incorrect to do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "speedy delete", but is now relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 17.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Minimal coverage at best. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 13:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish we had been made aware of the deletion review so we could comment, and I'm disappointed we were also not notified this AFD was re-opened. I have placed it back into the list of American football-related deletion discussions. My position has not changed in the discussion, although I offer the following additional reasons: fails WP:NGRIDIRON and fails WP:GNG, college athletic career does not appear to create enough news coverage to pass and the newly-discovered NFL Europe career also seems to not meet muster. I can find no notability measure that shows a pass.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my comments in the deletion review thread, fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When you nominate articles for deletion, it behooves you to click the article’s entry on its previous AfD if it’s there before going forth. This should’ve been a G4 speedy deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you comment in a deletion discussion, it behooves you to read the previous discussion and click the article's entry at deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Electric Racing Federation[edit]

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

The refs I can find don’t support the notability of this topic. The refs provided are all launch PR from 2007, after which there’s silence, and no indication that the planned races ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Yes, the subject has been dormant for 12 years but the sources are fairly extensive. I'm slightly leaning delete. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 13:35, 25 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 18:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Science Policy and Governance[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, cannot find any independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyvio was removed from the article leaving very little information. This is a well-known student-edited publication publishing student papers, like many in Category:Academic journals edited by students, so we don't expect it to be indexed. It is listed on university sites as a place for students to publish and its notices appear on the AIP weekly news and the AAAS news site. See this link at the Union of Concerned Scientists blog. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of extremely brief in-passing mentions and a longer post on the blog of a sponsoring organization are not enough to meet GNG. (The subject doesn't have to meet NJournals if it meets GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Big fail of GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Almost all extensive sources I managed to find was from a site or a publisher related with the journal. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 13:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. I don't think student-journals should be held to a lower threshold just because of that factor. Otherwise we would have a massive over-proliferation of this type of publication, for which peer-review is pretty scant and doubtless under-nourished.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:03, 25 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) 01:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lund[edit]

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

Note that the previous discussion was about a different person with the same name, so is not relevant to this topic at all — this article, in this form, hijacked an existing redirect from a corporate CEO to his company and replaced it with the actor. There are also still inbound links to this title that are still expecting the CEO, furthermore — most of the actor's redlinks were and are waiting for him at Steve Lund (actor), not here. (I've temporarily redirected that title here in the meantime, but depending on the outcome of this discussion it will have to be dealt with as well.)
This is WP:BLP of an actor, who is not yet sufficiently well-sourced to deem him notable. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — having roles is the job, so every actor would always get a free notability pass if all you had to do was state that they've had roles. So the notability test for an actor is not just the list of roles itself, but the reception of distinctions, such as a major acting award and/or having had enough reliable source coverage paid to his acting to get him over WP:GNG for it. Although I salvaged this from the BLPPROD pile by adding sources, there's simply not yet enough sourcing to render him keepable: literally the only strong source I could find is one substantive article about him from his hometown alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get him over the finish line all by itself, and other than that it's possible only to glancingly verify his existence in some other articles that aren't about him, so there just isn't enough coverage to consider him a notable actor yet.
That may change once Street Legal premieres, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his substantive coverage bulks up and/or he gets a Canadian Screen Award nomination next year for it — but as of today, the notability test he would have to meet is "passes GNG on the media coverage", and he just doesn't have enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom who tried to salvage the stub but there just isn't enough notability. I give applauds though because the unreliable user-generated IMDb being used through the "External links" as a source is a travesty. Otr500 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR, significant roles in at least two productions Schitt's Creek and Bitten (TV series). Plus, a news search of him provides enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Also had a lead role in a Hallmark TV film, The Christmas Cottage, a significant recurring role in the tv series Haven, and has apparently been cast as one of the leads in the upcoming reboot of [[Street Legal (Canadian TV series)|Street Legal] (although I'm not sure if production has begun on that one). Another significant role was in season 4 of Reign. The earlier AfD was about a non-notable businessman, but this actor clearly passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an actor has had roles — every actor would always get an automatic free pass over NACTOR if simply providing technical verification that they've had acting roles was enough to exempt them from having to clear GNG on the sourcing, because having acting roles is the job description. NACTOR is passed when the subject is substantively the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG for having had roles. That is, an actor doesn't automatically get over NACTOR just because his name gets glancingly namechecked in the cast lists of TV shows or films, he gets over NACTOR if and when multiple reliable sources have profiled him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though not the B grade actor from the 1960s that I was thinking of, he has an impressive history with reoccurring roles in at least seven television series'. Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 25 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) 01:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Coon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, highly PROMO. This is nothing but a vanity article John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - despite the article alternating between being about him and his firm, and it looking like a vanity piece due to suspicious SPA editors, there does seem to be sufficient media coverage of him to indicate notability. He has quite a bit of notoriety from his questionable legal judgement, as we see in the article. In addition to the sourcing already there, there are numerous articles mentioning him in the Beaumont Enterprise [[12]], coverage in The Guardian [[13]], and The Wall Street Journal [[14]] (WSJ info but not paywalled) [[15]]. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage such as a profile of him and not just mentions with regards to the famous cases - hence the weak rather than full keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:16, 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 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is quite a disgusting abuse of Wikipedia to say the least. Needless to say, he doesn’t meet GNG. Practically none of these sources are about him, rather his shenanigans. Routine at most, to me. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant self-promotional CV. The sources provided don't prove anything about the subject's relevance. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be sufficient mentions in reliable sources... and, ironically enough, more for his alleged and actual misdeeds than his accomplishments. I don't understand the characterization of this article as self-promotional because the article's content is geared toward his controversies rather than his merits. Forgery... fraud... racketeering... massive debt... if I was Attorney Coon, I'd want this article deleted. That being said, he seems notable if only because of the controversies he's been embroiled in. The fact that his checkered history is what generates his notability doesn't make him any less notable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:31, 27 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) 01:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Fables[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a short film series whose claims of notability are not adequately sourced. Winning craft awards at second-tier film festivals is not an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM that would exempt the article from having to be sourced up to scratch -- the test for whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it or not hinges on how much the media do or don't report on that award as news. (If primary sourcing the award win to the award's own self-published website were enough, we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever won any award at all, all the way down to local writing awards and employee-of-the-month programs at fast food restaurants.)
But of the nine footnotes here, four are Q&A interviews in which the filmmakers are speaking about themselves rather than being written about in the third person (a type of source which can be used to verify additional facts after the basic notability equation has already been covered off by stronger sources, but does not count as a data point toward the initial matter of establishing notability in the first place); one is an awarding film festival's self-published website; one is the filmmakers' own self-published Kickstarter; one is a short blurb which nominally verifies that one of the filmmakers exists as a musician, while supporting nothing that would constitute a notability claim as a filmmaker; and one is a university student newspaper. Literally the only source here which counts for anything at all toward establishing a WP:GNG pass is #8, the Montreal Gazette, but one piece of substantive media coverage in the subject's own hometown newspaper is not enough to get a topic to the finish line all by itself if all of the other references around it are primary sources and WP:SPIP. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, sources don't show notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly passes WP:GNG with a substantial piece in the Montreal Gazette which is most certainly not a local hometown newspaper but a major regional source and a national reliable source. Reference one has three paragraphs of prose before the interview, which is admissable as coverage as articles including interviews are not summarily dismissed on that basis if they have valid extra content apart from the interview. Reference four from The Concordian has seven paragraphs in prose about the project before and mixed in with the interview and is clearly substantial coverage, university newspapers are generally reliable sources especially as they do not have the commercial pressure applied to them. Reference nine has six paragraphs of prose directly about the project before the interview section and is clearly substantial coverage. The Montreal Gazette piece documents the two main awards that the films have won so the awards are being reported on in reliable sources and are therefore notable awards according to the nominators rationale. Also it is not just a three film project it also included an album and written work, and I don't see anything advert like in the tone. The article was more or less abandoned till I published it and the project lost all momentum after the premature death of one of the brothers who created the project so there has been no publicity drive. In conclusion the article passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The filmmakers are from Montreal, so the Montreal Gazette represents local coverage, not nationalized coverage, for the purposes of how much weight it does or doesn't carry on the GNG scale. If you're aiming for "doesn't have a hard pass of any SNG, but is notable under GNG anyway just because media coverage exists", then hometown media coverage is not enough to get a topic over the bar — the test is not "what is the footprint of the source's overall reputation?", but "what is the immediate relationship between the precise geographic location of the source's publication and the geographic location of the topic's home?" The existence of one or two pieces of local coverage in the topic's own hometown is not in and of itself an instant GNG pass — if it were, then we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and winners of high school poetry contests and unsigned garage bands and kids with cancer. GNG is not just "any topic that has gotten its name into any newspaper twice, no matter what context" — newspapers often devote coverage to local residents who have accomplished nothing of encyclopedic interest at all, so GNG does test for factors like the coverage's geographic range and whether the context in which the coverage is being given satisfies an SNG or not, and not just for the number of footnotes that exist.

And as for what I said about an award's ability to make its winners notable for winning it depending on media coverage, that test is also not automatically passed the moment you can show that one newspaper article exists in the subject's own hometown: again, that would force the creation of an article about nearly everybody who ever won any award at all, all the way down to neighbourhood arts or gardening awards, because human interest coverage of local people winning minor awards that aren't encyclopedically notable is a thing that newspapers very routinely publish. (There would even be a Wikipedia article about me if the existence of one piece of local human interest journalism in my hometown newspaper about me winning a minor award were all it took to get me over ANYBIO.) Rather, the notability test for winning awards requires the award to be one that generates regular coverage in a broad range of media outlets, such as the Academy Awards or the Canadian Screen Awards, and is not automatically passed by every award that can show the existence of one piece of local human interest coverage about the winner in their own hometown newspaper.

Q&A interviews can absolutely be used for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off by enough stronger sources — but as they represent the topic speaking about themselves, Q&A interviews do not count toward the initial question of whether the topic has cleared GNG in the first place. It doesn't matter how much prefatory text is present before the first Q — the substance of the source is still Q&A. And student newspapers work the same way: they can certainly be used for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been established, but they don't contribute much to the initial question of whether the topic gets over GNG in the first place either.

And it's not particularly relevant that this project also includes an album and written work — nothing stated in the article clears WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either, so that doesn't bolster the topic's notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately you seem to be making up the rules as you go along in this case. The Montreal Gazette is a national source not a local hometown paper and does not cover the more insignificant items or subjects, and I have not read in WP:GNG that a national reliable source should be excluded because the subject covered happens to be from the area that it is printed. For example an Evening Standard piece reviewing a London West End show is permitted as a reliable source showing notability. Also the WP:GNG guidelines make it clear that exerpts from a piece can be sufficient for establishing notability; and the prose in an article that includes an interview is not necessarily sourced to the subject at all, that is just your presumption. Major articles in reliable sources most often include interviews particularly for balance and often after negative comment that is obviously not sourced to the subject so interviews can be reliable sources if they contain independent prose content and there is no evidence the prose in these interviews were not the result of independent research before the interview. When the new WP:CORPDEPTH rules were being drawn up I specifically asked if prose content from interviews was acceptable for notability and I was told by @Renata: that such prose is acceptable even if the main part of the article is an interview so if such sources are acceptable for corpdepth which is much stricter than GNG then such sources such as six paragraphs before an interview are certainly acceptable for WP:GNG as applied to film articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I'm not making up any rules as I'm going along. I am entirely correct about how the distinction between "local" and "national" coverage works, for starters: the test is not applied to the source's distribution range, but to the context of what it's giving the topic coverage for. Say, for example, that The New York Times and the Peoria Journal Star both publish human interest articles about food truck operators in their own respective cities — the guy in Park Slope does not automatically get over GNG as a topic of greater notability than the guy in Peoria just because his piece happens to be in a more famous and more widely-distributed newspaper, because the context of what the NYT covered him for is no different in substance from what the Peoria guy got. And by the same token, this article does not instantly render Popi Rani Das more notable just because she lives in Toronto than she would be if she lived in Sudbury and the exact same article were appearing in the Sudbury Star instead of the Toronto Star — the context it's covering her for is still of purely local (not nationalized or encyclopedic) relevance, so it's still local coverage regardless of the fact that the Toronto Star has a more nationalized circulation.
The Montreal Gazette works the same way: even the major big-city dailies most certainly can and do still publish one-off human interest coverage about residents of their own home cities without instantly making those people nationally or internationally notable: the question of whether coverage is "local" or "national" does not attach to a newspaper's distribution range, but to the context of what the newspaper is covering the person for. Even The New York Times and the Toronto Star and the Montreal Gazette most certainly can and do still publish coverage of people of purely local interest that doesn't help to establish its subject as encyclopedically notable just because they happen to live in a city whose local newspaper has a wider distribution range than some other cities' local newspapers do. When it comes to establishing whether a person passes WP:GNG or not, the "local" vs. "national" test does not attach to the media outlet's distribution range, it attaches to the physical distance between the paper's head office and the topic's home. The context of what the coverage is being given for still has to satisfy a subject-specific inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 25 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 20:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. E. Whetstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and his position doesn't meet WP:NPOL. A search didn't turn up any real sources that suggest notability. The sources used are: 1) an entry into "A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography"; 2) a college yearbook; 3) a book by the article's since-banned author; 4) an obituary for a completely different person; 5) a newspaper advertisement; 6) An unlinked local newspaper article; 7) Hathorn's same book; and 8) his son's obituary GPL93 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as president of a state school board and inclusion in A Dictionary of Louisiana Biiography, published by the Louisiana Historical Assn.2605:6000:6415:EF00:D1F9:2B62:497B:7638 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — 2605:6000:6415:EF00:D1F9:2B62:497B:7638 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Having a short blurb in a local historical association's self-published biographical dictionary is not an instant free pass over WP:GNG — it's not nothing, I grant, but it isn't all by itself enough. But none of the other referencing here is cutting it at all, as it consists entirely of his alma mater's yearbook, an advertisement he placed and paid for himself, other people's Findagrave entries, a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, and two citations to single page namechecks in a book that has this article's creator as its author and thus falls afoul of our rule against self-citing your own work. His role with the Louisiana State Board of Education could get him an article if it were referenced properly, but is not an instant inclusion freebie that entitles him to be sourced like this. And SPAs who immediately jump into AFD discussions as their first-ever Wikipedia contributions are rarely convincing — 2605, you're one piece of thin ice away from being duck-blocked as a probable sockpuppet of a banned user. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 26 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 20:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Munjal[edit]

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

Have been trying to trim promotional content and unsupported claims, like having been CFO of Citi Holdings, but it is like wading through treacle. His company Doctor Insta has been deleted and salted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Insta, so cannot really see how he can be notable but not his company. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was the CFO of Citi Rel Holdings. Please see Bloomberg for verification. Also, he is well regarded and often quoted with more than 50 independent sources appearing on Google Search. His company Doctor Insta is also used by hundreds of thousands of people with tens of thousands of reviews on Google Play Store and Apple App Stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevada2020 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock.— Nevada2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep notable Indian American with scores of 3rd party references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.111.23.19 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 42.111.23.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is just another notability claim by an SPA without actually providing any third-party source. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in independent sources to satisfy WP:BIO—not "scores", but plenty. Non-notability isn't inherited any more than notability is. The article's language is promotional in places, but we fix that through editing, not deletion. Lagrange 613 19:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Delete per below. Lagrange 613 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors are stating that such coverage exists, so perhaps you (or someone else) could point me to two sources that amount to WP:SIGCOV ? Edwardx (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two: [16] [17]. For others, see the article's References section. Lagrange 613 02:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Lagrange613, both of the sources provided by you are the interviews of the subject to promote his non-notable Doctor_Insta company. They aren't even discussing the subject of this AfD, and are non-independent to start with. So they don't count toward notability – see WP:GNG. BTW, a cursory glance at the ref-bombing of the subject's article shows that the references are his interviews to promote his company, press-releases, or user-generated sources, none of which count toward notability. So, can you provide sources which have independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage of the subject? - NitinMlk (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate newspaper interviews constitute independent coverage, even when the subject is trying to promote something. (That's why they do interviews.) But you're right, the subject of those interviews appears to be his company rather than him. As a side note, the company does appear to satisfy WP:ORG: see e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21]. Contrary to what's been claimed several times here, the company article was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional, not because its subject was non-notable. I might try my hand at re-creating it when I have the time. In the meantime, no, I'm not able to find significant coverage of Munjal per se, so I'm changing my !vote. Lagrange 613 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reconsidering your !vote. But "legitimate newspaper interviews" do not "constitute independent coverage" when the subject is promoting himself or his company through them, as he has COI in both of the cases. BTW, most of the sources provided by you have a healthy amount of inputs from the company's founder, so they won't be considered as independent – see WP:ORGIND. Anyway, the creation of the company's article isn't relevant to this AfD. So, it's up to you to decide. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recall that notability and appropriateness of content are separate (though related) questions: see WP:NNC and WP:CONTN. When a newspaper decides to cover a company, that is evidence of the company's notability. For demonstrating notability, the format of that coverage (third-person narrative vs. CEO interview, print article vs. Web) is less important than the decision to cover it. For selecting content, editors need to keep in mind the motives of the different people quoted in the coverage. But that's also format-independent: we need to keep in mind a CEO's COI whether the quotation appears in a full interview or as part of a third-person narrative. Lagrange 613 14:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear to the closing admin, we are discussing about Doctor Insta here, which isn't the subject of this AfD. Lagrange613, I won't further discuss here regarding the Doctor Insta, as that's outside the purview of this AfD. But be careful while choosing the sources, as paid promo interviews are quite common in Indian media. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Senior Executive, well respected and quoted in India. When he became the CFO of Citi REL, The print media in our region covered his profile and celebrated his success from his small town beginning to getting where he got. Very many Articles and interviews on him are in public domain. For two references on him, here you go: [22][23]. Wikipedia has a content bias toward western notable individuals when most of the population and notable people are in east. we need to fix it and preserve and publish the profiles of more notable people from east like Munjal rather than just deleting them...my 2 cents.IndiPrince (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock.— IndiPrince (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First source is entirely written by the subject, so it is primary – he is writing about himself. And the second source is again an interview given by him to promote his company. So, none of them count toward his notability. Rest of your arguments are mostly WP:ILIKEIT. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that one element of the English Wikipedia's systemic bias is bias toward Western subjects. To the extent they favor sources about Western subjects, our core notability guidelines like WP:BIO may play a role in perpetuating this bias. However, countering this or any other element of bias doesn't mean disregarding the guidelines for underrepresented subjects. It means editors should (1) take extra care in evaluating the notability of underrepresented subjects and (2) actively seek out opportunities to add or increase coverage of underrepresented subjects. This is part of why I'm planning to take a stab at creating a neutral version of Doctor Insta that could survive WP:AFD. Lagrange 613 22:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First source is not written by him but by a noted journalist "Brinda DasGupta" from a leading Newspaper of India, "Economic Times"; Request you to read the article again as it clearly states this both at the top and at the bottom of the article. The second source is again a well known business news channel of India, "BTVi" (earlier Bloomberg TV India); You have to be a notable person to be invited for such interviews as an average joe won't get that opportunity. here are 2 more sources with one from an interview done by ET Healthworld Channel for their series "health leaders interview" and another one done by ET Now Channel as part of "Leaders of Tomorrow" series- [24][25]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.203.83 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)— 182.64.203.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first source clearly mentions the following: "As told to Brinda Dasgupta", i.e. he quoted the subject word for word. So, it is a primary source. The two new sources are again his interviews to promote his company – both of them totally focus on his company, not on him. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: As of now, all three !keep votes are by the SPAs who have made a total of five edits between them, and all of those edits are about this AfD's subject. In fact, the very first edit by each one of them on this project was to !vote keep here. And looking at the trend, there may be more SPAs waiting in the wings. I am also not surprised that the subject's article was created via a throwaway account. Even all of his pics were uploaded by an SPA. His company's article was also created multiple times by the similar sock/meat-puppets. In fact, creation of that page only stopped when it got salted last year. So there are signs of COI written all over it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 to the closing admin: I don't understand much of this wiki lingo and I apologize for it. Again, the way something was created shouldn't matter much. what matters is, if the individual is notable and the answer I am getting from a simple web search on the subject is "Yes".182.64.203.83 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted by me, this one is another SPA, and this is their first comment on this project. Anyway, they are making claims without backing them up with independent sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG. The subject has given a lot of interviews to promote his company, but I couldn't find third-party, in-depth, reliable sources about him. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO failure, and Munjal does not inherit undue notability from more notable projects they have been affiliated with. Delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 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 Samsung Gravity (original). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-t349[edit]

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

A phone model that does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Samsung Gravity (original). It's a thing that existed, but it appears that the most that can be said about it is that it resembled another model. bd2412 T 02:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Samsung Gravity (original). This article on a ten-year-phone model is unlikely to ever grow beyond this sentence and spec sheet, so our readers would be better served by seeing the information in the broader context of the phone series. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 25 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 Changera. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neemuch Dhaan Mandi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG advertising upcoming farmers market too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Changera - the market is not (yet) notable, but it might be a plausible search term, and it looks like it may quite possibly become notable in the future. There are a lot of bare-url refs in the article now; the bhaskar.com references basically repeat the same information which means that all those sources would not be relevant, but there's enough there to make a decent section in the article about the village. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 11 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-^☖ 20:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Changera. This one sentence of content and its sources can easily be merged to the stub on the village in which it is being built. It seems that the market will be a significant economic development, so putting this information in the village article would be consistent with Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer. Bakazaka (talk) 18:14, 25 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 Flashbang grenade. Redirect due to consensus over lack of demonstrated notability. If there is any properly sourced material it can be added to the flashbang article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder-B (Airsoft grenade)[edit]

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

Effectively no sources. Too much unreferenced original content. Created/major contributor is banned sock, the only contribution from this particular incarnation. Nothing suggests notability sufficient to justify a distinct article. Rayman60 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flashbang grenade. It's been around for four years and redirects are cheap. But yes, it fails WP:NPRODUCT. SITH (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SITH. Certainly isn't notable in and of itself and lacks secondary coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:54, 4 March 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. Per G5. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4D chess[edit]

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

A dictdef of a neologism - I've seen 9D and 12D chess [26] for this as well. Created by a CU-blocked user. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NEO. References all fail the use-mention distinction. Lowercaserho (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No prejudice to a WP:G4, but this is notable. Plenty of coverage on the notion that Trump is playing 4D chess. [27] [28] It's one of my favorite 2016 election memes, but it's been taken seriously by the likes of Kanye and Kasparov. wumbolo ^^^ 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 25 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 18:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cyprian's Episcopal School[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four in-depth treatments of the school are listed from ktre.com, a third party source; this means it passes WP:School.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:School. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, no it doesn't, and simply saying it does, does not make it so. NSchool simply shifts to WP:NORG and WP:NGEO, neither of which this non-notable primary school meets. Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is possible to subjectively discount the value of the sources or how "in depth" you want them to be. The more you do that the more you get into a grey area. I am of the opinion that the sources listed qualify it as a notable subject.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary schools are not presumed notable; routine coverage by one local source, even if in a few articles from the same source, does not establish notability. Epiphyllumlover's claim that these brief blurbs (three, not four here) are "in-depth treatments" is utterly laughable. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is no presumption of notability for primary schools. The sources are routine coverage from a local news source, as well pubs by the school itself. Edison (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Edison. Primary schools are generally lacking notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:56, 27 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 18:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rose Publishers[edit]

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

Non-notable company that has not substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. References currently cited are not reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per my googling I found it one of the well-established self-publishing company in India. they have many books published I checked on google books, Amazon, and Flipkart, web portal. They also have appeared in the local and national newspaper. Fabshukla^Talk 11:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user, who is the creator of the article, has an undisclosed financial conflict of interest regarding this topic. I have blocked them for covert advertising. Therefore, delete as spam. MER-C 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can see are press releases; the company doesn't appear to have released any notable publications (and it looks very much as though they may be a well-glossed vanity press rather than a legitimate publishing house in any case). I can confirm MER-C's findings regarding the creator; they are an employee of Blue Rose Publishing, despite their denials. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 25 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 18:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Heath[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Is more known as author on culture and pseudoscientific topics, but still does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBIO. Please also see this 2014 thread. Sourcing is also suboptimal. —Paleo Neonate – 08:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 08:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NPROF; I thought he might pass WP:NAUTHOR on account of all the books he's authored, but going through them they are mostly self-published (Bluestone Press seems to be his own company, the only mention I can find of it is on his own personal website - don't be confused by BlueStone Press, a local news site in Northern Ireland), and even the ones that were published by another company have received zero reviews in any non-UGC mainstream sources. Can't see coverage of the man himself to meet WP:NBIO, so delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:37, 28 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 keep. Nomination Withdrawn by User:Rehman (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 11:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of water supply and sanitation by country[edit]

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

This page is better off as a category or a navbox, latter of which I have created at {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. No foreseeable use other than a collection of links. Articles in the last section is pending merge, and currently has hatnote links to the articles linked on the template. The last section also already have their own navboxes. Reh man 05:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN and WP:ATD. The fact that the nominator thinks they have created a better fork is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Water supply and sanitation by country. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Northamerica1000, I was not aware of WP:NOTDUP. I guess we learn something new everyday. The AFD may be speedy closed as withdrawn. Sorry for the trouble, User:EMsmile. Kind regards, Reh man 11:00, 25 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Amit[edit]

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

A Google search reveals very little about him, with the only non-trivial coverage the Haaretz article about him after his death (cited as two different references for some reason in the Wikipedia article). A review of his work does not suggest that he made significant contributions to mathematics (Google Scholar and JSTOR have nothing on him). Therefore fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — MarkH21 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amit left academia and spent his career in the defence and intelligence sector, where contributions are seldom published. Granted English-language Google results are scarce, but a forward by Agi Mishol, aulogies by Uzi Arad, Yadin Dudai, etc. suggest notability as a senior advisor to Israel's defence establishment. Kyuko (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if so, I imagine one could find sources that allow him to pass WP:BASIC? — MarkH21 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of 3 books, life and career of some note. Solid sources that show notability.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing 3 books in itself is not sufficient for notability, the body of works must satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Right now there is only one independent reliable source with significant coverage of him. If there are more that can be found and added, then the subject should qualify by WP:BASIC though. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ! Ilan Amit is a well known Israeli figure, there is a documentary film about him, there are notable and reasonable sources about him (ten good sources in major media outlets and academic ones). Tzahy (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great then! ~~Could you link them for verifiability?~~ — MarkH21 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that Kyuko (talk · contribs) has added a few more sources. All of them are passing mentions (i.e. trivial coverage) of the subject but there are two sources verifying the existence of some kind of documentary film about him. My impression is that this is probably a reliable independent source, but I cannot fully evaluate it. If so, then the subject is presumably notable by WP:BASIC / WP:GNG because of the Haaretz article + this film. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. full length feature Obit in Haaretz (which they also translated to English) - [29]. In-depth coverage (Hebrew) in the 80s - [30]. Review of one of his books - [31]. And I think there's quite a bit more - finding digitized Hebrew stuff is not so easy for the period. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 4 March 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 20:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Rinot[edit]

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

For the same reason as another recently created article by the same creator. No claim to notability here besides being a decent researcher. A review of his work does not suggest that he made significant contributions to set theory based on his 29 existing papers (most cited paper has 11 citations not from himself). None of his works are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia either. Therefore fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and most importantly WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. Citability (in GScholar and in MathSciNet) is too low, for math, to satisfy WP:PROF#C1, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds yet. Nsk92 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rinot solved several open problems in set theory, as indicated in his list of publications ([32]). Two noteworthy examples are the solution of the Hedetniemi's conjecture for uncountable graphs in [33], and his paper described here which improves on a 35-years old theorem of Saharon Shelah who is the world leader in set theory. Tzahy (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how WP:PROF works. We can't go by his own publication list or by what he says in his own papers about the significance of his results, we have to rely on WP:INDEPENDENT sources for establishing notability. For the argument you are trying to make to be convincing for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, we would have to see either evidence of high citability of his results in the work of others, or some examples of in-depth detailed discussion in the work of others of importance of his specific results. I am not seeing evidence of either here yet. E.g. for his most high profile publication (at least in terms of the journal's standing), in JEMS with the proof of Hedetniemi's conjecture for uncountable graphs that you mention above, MathSciNet lists just two citations, and both are in Rinot's own papers. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation counts reported by MathSciNet and Google Scholar are too low for a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the subject is "only" (quotes because I am a mere postgraduate student in Mathematics, and at my age don't expect to get any further than that) an associate professor, and as such would have to be pretty exceptional to pass any count of WP:PROF. The paper on Hedetniemi's conjecture, which is claimed above to be one of his crowning glories, has more citations listed on Google scholar than on MathSciNet, but it's still only 5, with 3 having Rinot as a co-author, and the other claim of notability above, the "Putting a diamond inside the square" paper, has 6 citations, of which all 6 are self-citations Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough citations. Doesn't pass other PROF criteria or GNG. FWIW - his output and citation trajectory is such he probably will pass NPROF#1 in 3-5 years - but not at present.Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 3 March 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 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southdown Creative[edit]

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

Vanity page by COI. not a single source. fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG, a googling shows no notable coverage, media reports, or anything of the sort (or in fact any RS). I agree with Rayman60 that it appears to have been created as a COI vanity (page creator named Fred, company founder named Fred, unlikely coincidence). Surprised its been around so long and no one noticed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely advertising, not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 25 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 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Northup Jr.[edit]

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

shameless self promotion by 2 COI SPAs. Not a single source. fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely advertising. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 28 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. Michig (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ballecer[edit]

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

Non notable person who fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. No clear achievemnts or contributions in any field, article is a simple biography. Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:ENT, fails all three tests. Rscottjensen (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 09:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage by The Mercury News, National Catholic Reporter, and PC Magazine, per the article's sources. ^Falling_Gravity 09:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep credible, independent sources establish notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like to play the Devil's Advocate but was unable to find a reason to vote delete. While not particularly accomplished, Robert seems to have adequate news coverage to warrant notability, for now. PhobosIkaros ✉ 18:32, 25 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 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Şemsişah Sultan[edit]

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

Invented character, no source. Peirce does not mention her, so this is a case of a fake reference. No usual source about Ottoman history mention her either. Phso2 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find a single mention anywhere. The references are really poor. The father, Levan II Dadiani has two wives according to the Georgian article. One of these wives had four children with two of them being daughters. It is possible that this is one of them. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I did verify before accepting this at WP:AFC. I thought I found her in the Peirce reference but I can reproduce that this morning so apparently it was elsewhere. I should have taken notes. I'll try to have another look at this soon. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The father article has her original name. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, what Peirce writes about Murad IV's consort lays here, ie one Ayșe and one another anonymous (in Peirce) favorite. No Georgian royal family, only the notion that "very little is known". This is not the first fictitious article written about a member of Ottoman dynasty, it is probably a side-effect of the success of Muhteşem Yüzyıl.--Phso2 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the page, possibly a fictional article? What an odd phenomena. I would suggest a delete then. I think the other article needs updated. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,I'm the writer of this article. You are right to think this is a fictional article for the mistake was made on my part as I didn't add all the citations and sources needed to proove the veracity of the article-I simply forgot. But I added the citations and sources which can be found in the "Names" and "Life" sections in the article. As for the part which indicates that Zilihan was part of Murad IV's harem it is in the citation after the word "Şemsişah" in the "Life" section more specifically on page 6 of the pdf in the "2 Eşleri" paragraph.I would never create an article if I wasn't sure of the information I'm using. I hope you give the article another read now that I added the sources and change your mind about its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christelle75 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you did'nt add any reliable source : this pdf is not a reliable source so it can't be used here. You have to find a history book written by a scholar, not a essay written by anybody.--Phso2 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC) PS: You also have to explain why you put Peirce as a reference for "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" (ref 3), when she actually never mentions a "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan".[reply]

Comment I don't know anything about this period, but it's not self-evident that the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zilikhana_Dadiani.jpg is a forgery or mis-identified. It seems that Cristoforo de Castelli (1600-60) did indeed make lots of sketches at the Georgian court at this time: http://library.ifla.org/53/1/095-chikhladze-en.pdf. But I too have checked a full, searchable text of Peirce and don't find any mention. Alarichall (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suggest the image is a forgery or mis-identified, howewer its description "Zilihana Dadiani, daughter of Levan II. A sketch by the Catholic missionaire Don Cristoforo De Castelli" DOES NOT make any connection to a "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" nor to the Ottoman dynasty.Phso2 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the file that prooves Zilihan Dadiani was Şemsişah Sultan it's the pdf I cited: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1InlFHfvxGlBaicpp8oYZyrZO1j90LcEE/view?usp=drivesdk you can find Şemsişah sultan on page 6 in the "2 eşkleri" paragraph, also this pdf is reliable you can even check its bibliography which is composed solely on books written by Turkish historians. As for why I put a Pierce reference after "Şemsişah Haseki Sultan" it wasn't meant to be put there it was meant to be cited after "1,000 aspers" because according to Pierce Murad IV's wives/concubines earned 1,000 aspers a day.~Christelle75 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christelle75 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! The weird thing about that PDF, however, is that it's a copy of an old version of the Turkish Wikipedia entry for Murad IV. The current version doesn't mention Şemsişah or Zilikhana, though! This is the last version of that entry where she appeared. The edit summary for the next entry says 'Nushirevan11 (mesaj | katkılar) tarafından oluşturulmuş 14.53, 8 Aralık 2016 tarihli sürüm (→‎Eşleri: Temrukoğlu adında bir tarihçi yoktur. Temrukoğlu soyadında bloglar açan çeşitli kadın sultanları kendi soyundan zanneden takıntılı bir şahsın uyduruk hikayeleridir. Necdet Sakaoğlu'nun kitabında iki eşi olduğu yazar.)'. Google Translate says this means 'Nushirevan11 (message | contributions) by 14.53, dated 8 December 2016 (→ spouses: there is no historian named Temrukoglu. Temrukoglu, who opened blogs in the name of the various women sultans who think his descendants are obsessive stories of a person obsessed. author.)'. @Nushirevan11: Could you help us with this discussion? Is there reliable evidence that Şemsişah Sultan existed and was also called Zilihana Dadiani? Alarichall (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As showed by the edit summary, the relevant part was erased by Nushirevan11 on the Turkish WP because this pdf is a non reliable writing signed by some people named "Temrukoglu" who claims to be related to the Ottoman dynasty on various blogs(cf [34] ; same claims about the same family were to be found on other Ottoman family members' articles a while ago ).Phso2 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be really happy if it turns out there's scholarship out there (presumably not in English, as I've searched hard for evidence in English) that shows that this person was real and notable. But given the discussion so far, I would support deleting. @Christelle75: I'm conscious that this is your first Wikipedia entry in English, and it's great to see you've been editing in Arabic Wikipedia too: you are obviously bringing some amazing skills to Wikipedia. I would not want you to be discouraged if this article is deleted. So if you want help with editing in future (for example if you want help finding scholarly sources or advice about Wikipedia guidelines), totally write to me on my talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alarichall. Thanks for your efforts! Alarichall (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A fake name. IV. Murad has no wife like that. This name is not mentioned in Necdet Sakaoğlu's Women Sultans.--Nushirevan11 (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion... but just one clear !vote so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, Kvng, and Alarichall:since this is the third relisting after 22 days of process, could you please make your votes more clear in order to end this discussion? So far no source has been produced to support the content of this article except a non reliable pdf found on the net, which contradicts a reliable source: there is no reason to keep this AfD open indefinitely.Phso2 (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't really feel qualified to comment on this, but as far as I can see, we should delete. Alarichall (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Phso2: The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire is by Oxford University Press, must be a good reference. Delete if there is no other evidence since I made my last comment almost three weeks ago. There seems to be no evidence for her. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Scope creep:, but could you please vote clearly Delete instead of just Comment please? because otherwise your advice is still counted as "discussion" instead of "clear !vote" and it doesn't help to close the AfD.Phso2 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - Lack of coverage where it would be expected. Possible WP:HOAX although there is no evidence of this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second delete for visibility.scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 25 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. Both sides have been talking in generalities without enough discussion of specific sources. MRRaja001 and RebeccaGreen mentioned the existence of additional news articles but failed to present any actual links. Meanwhile the delete side has simply asserted lack of WP:SIGCOV even though there are several trustworthy news websites in the article already which they have not refuted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Gopal Das[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)

This article was AfD'ed in March 2018 and I don't see much evidence that much as changed since then. The article itself is very promotional with lots of references that would not meet WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe keenly there are more than 15 to 20 References from various Newspapers and few from the University websites. There is no reason to delete the article. MRRaja001 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO lacking support for notability. Created TOOSOON after first AfD, and with no lessons learned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author of article) lacking support for notability? The Hindu, Times of India, Gulf News, Republic World, Muscat Daily all these are most famous new papers, which i think is enough for references. 1. TEDx talk at IIM Ranchi 2. Was invited for 3-day techfest along with Dalai Lama at IIT Bombay, where 7,000 students took part 3.speeches at leading companies in the world.MRRaja001 (talk) 9:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. No, those are not signs of notability. Motivational speakers give motivational speeches, it's how why they have that job title. See the previous AfD discussion for more about this. And having promotional press releases published in a notable paper also doesn't confer notability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 15 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) 04:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started cleaning up some of the most promotional text, and have removed several sources that were entirely promotional or else trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. There is one thing that has changed since the previous AfD, and that is the fact that he has received a honorary doctorate - the problem is that I'm not quite sure of the status of such doctorates in India. In Sweden, it would definitely be a sign of notability but I have come to understand that at some universities in e.g. the USA the requirements for a honoris causa doctorate can be extremely flimsy. Does anybody know the situation in India? --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bonadea: Nice job. Little now giving notability. The university in question is a private college, the MIT - World Peace University (we should use that title - or was it a sub-group?), which is unknown to me. Again, most people getting honorary doctorates in my part of the world have lots of good quality RS on their notability – E.g. the honorary doctorate is not needed to establish notability, as the figure is usually highly notable, which is why they get the HD. Britishfinance (talk) 12:40, 15 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) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably. I see a lot of coverage of his talks - not press releases, but reports with bylines in multiple, reliable, independent newspapers, including the Times of India - coverage which is not currently in the article. The previous AfD ran for only one week, and had 2 delete votes (including the Nom), and one keep, and there is very little discussion in it, and none that is relevant to the question of significant coverage of his talks (rather than reliable sources for whether he spoke in the UK parliament and Google head office). I would say that he meets WP:BASIC, and perhaps WP:AUTHOR #3. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No single RS covered his Google talk; the main ref is his facebook page? [35]. Speaking in a company does not make you interently notable. I am sure there are many priests etc. who have given talks in companies. It does not make them notable, and particularly so with the body of RS decides not to report on the talk (which is why WPs reliles on GNG at it's core).

He did not deliver "a talk to the UK Parliment". There is a single reference to him being "in" the UK Parliment on - again - facebook pages [36]. If you search the official "Parliment.UK" site [37], there is nothing on Gaur Gopal Das. Maybe he spoke to a few MPs in a small room, but the essence of this is a fake claim.

I can't find a single article on the subject in a material RS. No independent bio article, no independent book on him, no appearance on a main tv network, no chapter in an independent book. Nothing. Only passing references to his talks/PR campaigns to promote himself as a guru.

In addition, there is not even a "contrived" case that he meets as NAUTHOR – unless we assume that anybody who writes their own book which is discussed in non-RS (e.g. fans, his blogs etc.), is now a valid BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after some careful consideration. His talks are not notable (again I refer to my rationale for that in the previous AfD - I know that had very low participation but it seems like a waste of time to repeat my arguments, which are identical). There is no significant coverage in independent sources. And I've arrived at the opinion that the honorary doctorate doesn't confer notability on its own given the fact that the awarding institution is not allowed to call itself a university, and as Britishfinance points out, in almost all cases where a honoris causa doctorate is notable, the person receiving it was already notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, not a notable subject. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But she didn't list any sources? AfD only works if people list RS so they can be debated. GNG is not about proving "existance", it is about "notability", and in that regard requires "several significant independent RS". At the moment, we don't even have one. Otherwise, it is just a vote (which it is not meant to be). Britishfinance (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a google news search shows some reliable significant coverage in Hindi major newpapers, just that the majority are Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hninthuzar (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google news search shows a lot of primary references from his sources/name checking him. There is not a single significant material RS "on him" (of which he is the subject), which is why none of the keep votes have produced any (despite other editors going through in detail above). All we get are general statements. Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: What's going on with deleting it. You know it's going to be harder to know if been deleted. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of poppycock going on in this article. Wikipedia is not for advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR. --K.e.coffman ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]—]) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he meet WP:AUTHOR #3 and speech in the UK parliament and Google head office. promo text are already removed by other editor. Ratherfel (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:NAUTHOR #3? That requires rather a lot more than simply publishing a book. --bonadea contributions talk 06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see Rebecca's cmt. Ratherfel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you clarified what you mean. What has he authored that constitutes a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@69.160.30.58: @Ratherfel: Because you just joined Wikipedia today, and your first edit is to make a proper formed entry on the AfD section (and know how to substitite "Ratherfel" for your IP-address in signatures), you may not realise that AfD is not a vote (see banner above). You must provide arguements that meet WP:PNG. You should also be aware of WP:SOCK. We have a subject (and his followers) who are trying to use Wikipedia to improve his notability (because he has not been the subject of any significant WP:RS as a subject). However, in Wikipedia, is it the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Please read the above carefully. Any claim of notability that this charachter has (as per the first AfD) is either faked (that he "addressed the UK parliment"), or not from an WP:RS (there are plenlty of follower blogs/facebook junk), or not relevant to WP notability (e.g. giving a talk to a group in Google, which no RS reported on). There is a WP:SOCK element here and "Keep" votes based on ILIKEIT (or contrived interpritations of NAUTHOR) vs. WP:PAG. BLPs with a strong COI/PROMO aspect should not be "contrived" cases. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 1 March 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 move to Draft:Beat the Blondes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Blondes[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article (and has been since 2010) for an unaired TV pilot. As per WP:TVSHOW, unaired TV pilots are almost never notable enough to justify a standalone article, and this article clearly fails to meet this benchmark, and thus merits deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given there are international versions, the format is not unsold. It may not have been sold in America, but the format can still be considered notable given multiple versions of the program around the world. The article should just be rewritten to focus on the show format, rather than the unproduced American version. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whats new?: That's a different article. Another article on the Ukrainian show indicates that the Dutch version may be "first". However, as far as I can tell, even Dutch Wikipedia does not have an article on the Dutch version, which doesn't inspire me with confidence on the subject's notability... Regardless, the Dutch version is not the American version, and we should not keep an article on an unsold pilot for the American version. If this is truly notable, an entirely new article on the franchise should be written from scratch, but probably in Draftspace first to see if the franchise itself has received enough independent coverage... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no reason why this article can't be retooled into a franchise article, given it already has the format detail and international version summary, and is already at the base title -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here – an article about one topic shouldn't be "converted" to an article on a different topic. This goes beyond simply "revising" the WP:SCOPE of the existing article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's the same topic - just going from region-specific to franchise -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or drafity or weak delete'. If some versions have sold, they may be notable, or the show format may be notable. As written, however, this is indeed unreferenced article about an unsold TV pilot, and as such fails WP:GNG and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userfy if anyone wants to take over rewriting the article so that it will be focused on the format rather than on the unsold U.S. version, as well as providing sources. The format would presumably be notable if it was produced and broadcast in multiple countries. Otherwise, delete without prejudice to having a better article created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. J4lambert (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/news/tales-from-the-loop-and-7th-sea-lead-rpg-nominees-for-2017-ennie

[2] ttps://www.polygon.com/2017/7/5/15923872/best-tabletop-rpgs-2017

[3] ttps://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/66942/2017-ennie-award-nominees-and-judges-spotlight-win

[4] ttps://www.geeknative.com/60112/ennies-2017-winners/

[5] Galaxy, Geek's Guide to the (2017-05-06). "The Bonkers Role-Playing World of 'Rifts' Just Got Even Bigger". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

[6] "Black Desert Online: BDO KR Patch Notes Aug 16th - Warrior's new Black Spirit's Rage Skills, Savage Rift reworks". www.invenglobal.com. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

[7] Hall, Charlie (2017-07-05). "The best tabletop RPGs of 2017". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-02-27.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]