Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Dodge[edit]

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

County-level official who fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, all sources are primary. GPL93 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL, and a scan for other reliable sources shows only routine local coverage related to her political office without significant independent coverage. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montgomery County, Ohio elections or delete; doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines valereee (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commissioners are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — at this level of government, the notability test is the ability to show a depth and range and volume of reliable source media coverage that marks her out as a special notability case of significantly greater notability than most other county commissioners. But this shows nothing of the sort at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of her office, which is in itself not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no coverage outside office. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Texas A&M vs. Alabama football game[edit]

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

Article currently has one lone citation re the box score and fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. . There is routine coverage commensurate with the No 1. ranked team losing, but not much more or of long-term significance. Issues tagged since 2014 & 2016. See Category:College football games as helpful. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with no prejudice toward re-creation) not for notability, but for violating policy WP:OR (original research). The one source given in the article contains only statistics that I can see, and the article is peppered with opinions (such as in the section AFTERMATH and the data in the lead about the Heisman Trophy). It's not enough. Because of this policy violation (and because it references living persons and could therefore be impacted by WP:BLP as well), the article should be removed from mainspace. HOWEVER, the game could have the WP:IMPACT needed to achieve notability because of its influence on the Heisman race (as asserted in the article without sources) so I would not oppose USERFY for the article if an enthusiastic editor wants to take custody and prepare it with proper sources so that it no longer violates policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (agree with no prejudice to recreation) Per Paulmcdonald-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. There's no coverage other than contemporaneous WP:MILL sports coverage. I don't see any reason to expect that re-creation would be beneficial. Not all Alabama football losses are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul McDonald. We really need sources. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oystar[edit]

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

Borderline notability because of a single chart hit, but the article for that song was deleted long ago. Mccapra (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the more blatantly unencylopaedic material, but this is still wholly non-notable and trivial. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added their version to I Fought the Law#Other versions - although non-notable it probably belongs in the article because of its chart position. There's an article in the German Wikipedia but with not much more information, and the only sources there are the chart website and the band's website. Although this meets criterion 2 of WP:BAND because "I Fought the Lloyds" was in the UK Singles Chart, I can only find coverage of the song and not the band. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A barely notable song which only qualifies for a sentence in the I fought the law song article. The band itself is not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Captain America enemies. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protocide[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of three articles, character appears thirteen times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indications of notability from anywhere.★Trekker (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P or List of Captain America enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Do not merge or redirect, as if we do this for all characters, pages will be filled with unwieldy cruft. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trekker and Killer Moff. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - character does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to List of Captain America enemies. Still can be of some use to readers. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and MattLongCT; not enough independent coverage, but useful content that we can keep in the list of Cap enemies. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Billy[edit]

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

I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and a massive case of WP:ARTSPAM. There is a fair amount of hyper local coverage but little in the way of national or significant in-depth coverage at this point in time. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Michael Billy is notable for several reasons. He won the equality award, as stated in what was listed, as well as being included in Clinton’s anti-bullying campaign (also listed). He has also brought Hudson Pride Center to the forefront in the LGBT’s connection to care with Carepoint Health. This links directly to his own mental heath battles that he has had throughout his youth. His advocacy work with Jersey City Stands alone has brought notability to Jersey City and helped lead JC to become a sanctuary city. Jtbell04 (talk) Jtbell04 —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG and looks like a case of WP:PROMO, none of the above reasons establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being CEO of a locally-focused organization is not an instant notability freebie that guarantees someone a Wikipedia article just because they exist, and people aren't automatically notable just because they won awards that aren't notable either — for either of those claims, the notability test is the depth and geographic range of media coverage that they can be shown to have received in those contexts. But this is entirely too dependent on sources that aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over the inclusion bar: every single source here is a blog, a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself or a piece of writing where he's the bylined author and not the subject, a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source whose primary subject is somebody else, a primary source that does absolutely nothing to help establish notability at all, or a piece of purely local coverage in his own hometown media that any locally active organizer and political candidate could routinely expect to receive. Nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing his eligibility to have a Wikipedia article, but none of these sources are strong enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant independent source (never mind several), despite being in a major U.S. city. Article is written in a very promotional style. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DKS (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources. WP:BEFORE found no other reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Nom states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Michael (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable investor/developer, no real coverage, everything is basic WP:MILL announcements and PR pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of it seems to be announcements of the houses he plans to build except for one reference. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty strong PROMO article; no real RS of notability. (I have a feeling that this will need salting). Britishfinance (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Kennet[edit]

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

Page is hopelessly promotional and was created by an editor with a stunningly obvious and (undisclosed) COI. The references used do not back up the claims made in the article and many of them are unacceptable sources for a Wikipedia article (blogs, company website, and a link to a pornography site that I removed while I was checking the references). There is nothing to salvage in this article, none of the claims in it can be reliably sourced and the subject does not appear notable enough to warrant the whole-cloth rewrite necesary for this article. SWL36 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's comprehensive assessment. – Athaenara ✉ 04:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article created by a load of SPA to give credence to a non notable. Lots sourced to her own organisation Lyndaship (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is part of a "walled garden" of promotional articles which includes Green Economics Institute (speedy deleted as promotional), The Green Economist (deleted), Michelle Gale De Oliveira (proposed deletion), and International Journal of Green Economics. Deli nk (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. She has "published a multitude of academic papers"? – more a handful than a multitude, mostly published in the International Journal of Green Economics, her own journal; only the first three have citations above single figures. She has "edited and published about 30 books"? – it certainly seems so: these are apparently all published by the same publishing house ... the Green Economics Institute in Reading. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional article (she even tries to claim ownership of the definition of "Green Economics"). Fails WP:PROF. Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Stater[edit]

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

This was originally proposed for deletion by BilCat with the rationale: Only one source about the name, appears to be one person's art exhibit, not an organized multiple person movement as implied is the text here, and as such not notable enough for its own article. The article Names for United States citizens adequately covers alternative names already.

I endorse this rationale, and this it should be deleted. It used to be a redirect, but I don't think that's even needed at this time, so delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Article as revived is basically a POV WP:SOAPBOX rant against Americans and the English language use of the term. Replacing deleted article with a redirect would be fine. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, massively lacks WP:NPOV. Delete per nom. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth salvaging here; delete and don’t redirect. Britishfinance (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn. A clear consensus that directors of national libraries are notable and in this instance she passes WP:PROF (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Jolly[edit]

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

I'm not against librarians, but there aren't any sources on her that don't involve her single event of being hired by the British Library, and all of the sources are routine "new person hired"-type sources. Possibly promotional, fails WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I'm still not sure I understand how this qualifies as an academic position, but it looks like I missed on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't think that WP:BLP1E applies because she is not a low-profile individual. Additionally, she is clearly notable under both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. Finally, @The Drover's Wife: may be interested having moved it to article space from AfC and @Citrivescence: having questioned this article previously. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but which part of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO does she pass? I don't see it, nor can I find sources on her apart from what's already in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As head librarian of the British Library she passes WP:PROF#C6. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce (RSA) [1], so she may well also pass #C3. Note that past head librarians have received extensive coverage [2] so it is reasonable to expect this level of coverage for Jolly as well. Her previous situation as head of the library at Teesside is not inherently notable in itself, but is enough to avoid any issues with WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the British Library typically considered an "academic institution?" I see we have U.S. Library of Congress head librarians but not for other countries, though it appears those librarians typically pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein's logic - passes WP:PROF on multiple grounds. In addition to arguments already made, there are also potential references pre-dating her British Library appointment: for one example (among several), she was selected multiple times as a judge for The Guardian's University Awards, which profiled her and cited her experience with Tessdale and peak university library body SCONUL. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the rationales. I have no doubt that she will be listed in several new directories as the editions are published. Previous directors are amply covered. I think this is a full keep. I will close it. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The senior professional staff member of one of the most important national libraries in the world. In which dimension is someone in this position not notable? Maybe she ought to be a one-hit wonder or play a single game of croquet for England. Then she'd be notable! No question. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 and possibly C3. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goest Ryder[edit]

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

No coverage, no evidence this person meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep The article meets WP:GNG ond WP:NMUSIC with verifiable references included like PGH City Paper and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to actually read WP:GNG. Hyper local fluff pieces are worthless and don't establish anything. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Post-Gazette is very much not a "hyper local" paper and should probably count as one source favoring retention. On the other hand, the Pittsburgh City Paper would probably be acceptable for use as a reference in an article that otherwise met the notability bar, but I wouldn't weight it very heavily for determining whether a topic meets the GNG. Beyond that, I don't have a horse in this race. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true, neither of the sources they refer to are useful regardless of where they come from. It's like the Forbes paradox. Sometimes it's a suitable source and other times it's total garbage written by random contributors or it's fluff. Praxidicae (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it shouldn't influence the outcome of this AfD, the original author and respondent above has been blocked indef for apparent promotional (and possibly COI) editing and a very combative approach to concerns expressed by other editors about it. Whether or not they appeal, they will probably remain unavailable for further comment for some time. General Ization ^Talk 02:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. General Ization ^Talk 20:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the pertinent inclusion guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to want to make a case for notabilty merely based on existence. The few potentially significant sources--local or otherwise--are run-of-the-mill human interest pieces about a person's attempt to rebuild life after getting out of prison, but there is otherwise no encyclopedic achievements of any kind. But, hey, wishing success to the guy for putting his drug/troubled past behind him. If he's destined to be a success in music (at least he's moving in the right direction signing to Cleopatra Records, although this claim is not reliably sourced) this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly written by an undisclosed COI editor who has been blocked. And Not notable. VViking_TalkEdits 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find a single strong RS (nevermind several) to support this. Britishfinance (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rangitihi Survey District[edit]

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

Survey districts appear to be districts for land ownership blocks - they have no administrative function and are never used outside their very narrow function. There are literally thousands of these in New Zealand and a precident that these are notable will lead to the inclusion of every one of these with no content other than coordinates. Wikipedia is not a directory. None of which other than this one have a page. The references used to support this do not really support the notability of the page. Reference 1 is for the Rangitihi survey district East of Taupo not in the Chathams. Reference two references a hill not a district. Referece 3 is in a specialised paper on geology and mentions it in passing. The creator of this page has obvously had to dig very deep for these questionable references so I suspect there are very very few out there supporting this page. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect these Survey Districts are pre-1950 and were only slightly more important than the modern topographical map areas, which are still without a page New Zealand Map grid. I can find no information that makes the ones on the Chatham Islands special. This survey district has almost no notability. A single page explaining NZ mapping history would be great, one page for every area from every historical iteration less so. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. Even the term survey district isn't notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and other NZ "survey district" articles, if any). "Survey districts" aren't notable enough for pages in Wikipedia. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as above). General comment: User:Shevonsilva, who created this page has a record of generating thousands (literally thousands per month) of generally vacuous stub articles, presumably using software to read a page like this one - [3] - to generate a stub for every entry in a column. See Paraná Department for example. Is this really the sort of editin that makes Wikipedia better, or more dilute? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with the creator. Paraná Department is a county of 5000 sqKm, population 350,000, it absolutely needs a comprehensive Wikipedia article, so starting one is a good thing.--Pontificalibus 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I finally found what a Survey District is "With the abolition of the Provinces on 1 November 1876, a standard system of surveys was instituted. New Zealand was divided into twenty-eight geographical areas, termed Meridional Circuits. These areas were then divided into Survey Districts. A survey district was to be 122 miles (1,000 chains) square and divided into l6 blocks 3 miles (250 chains) square".[4] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Not notable. Will never be other than a weird stub.CoronaryKea (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because Rangitihi Volcanics merit a mention in Chatham_Islands#Geology per [5] and [6].--Pontificalibus 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pontificalibus, forgive the rant. I could write a PhD on Chatham Islands geology and never mention the survey district. The redirect would be there for people who want to know about the Rangitihi Volcanics, but don't know they are in the Chathams and don't know they are volcanics, but did know they are named after the 19th century Rangitihi survey district, this person does not exist (also these volcanics are not notable and not likley to be). It is also an invitation for hundreds of new redirects across New Zealand as geologists run out of names quickly and use some very unnotable things. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bernat[edit]

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

This is ridiculous. This “article” is one sentence about being Nacho Vidal’s ex-girlfiend (how is that relevant?). She may have won a Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival award 19 years ago but she has no career to speak of. If Franceska Jaimes’s article got deleted for inherited notability of being Vidal’s ex-wife—this is an even worse offender. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - meets of the WP:PORNBIO #1. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A FICEB Ninfa Award might have satisfied PORNBIO before 2014, but it does not meet the "well-known and significant industry award" standard in place now. Editor consensus confirms this with Jessica May (2017) and Sharka Blue (2018). • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official consensus to discredit of FICEB awards, single cases in various AfDs do not matter for WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our current notability guidelines. We need to follow them and not the past discredited ones that lead to excessive articles on minor figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet PORNBIO as "Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival" is not an award that's significant and well known. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable source coverage to pass GNG. Award win fails the well-known and significant industry award test for PORNBIO without independent coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John DePass[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG and I don't see any other notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Planview. Sandstein 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metis (software)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSOFT and WP:NPRODUCT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources which suggest notability as an outstanding product in its field. SITH (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Google Books is providing some coverage, some of which is only in snippet views, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Merge/Redirect to the Planview article. This article is completely unreferenced; even the External Link is to Planview Inc. Can't find anything that would confirm WP:NSOFT but I am not a computer person. Britishfinance (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Sawyerr[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP which does not assert notability. A google search turns up little of value: he did apparently win a "best documentary award" at the Ouchy Film Festival in 2016 [7] but I think it would be a massive stretch to say this counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor", and he is mentioned by name here and there, but otherwise I can only find a promotional bio [8]. Not everyone who works in television is notable and I think this falls some way short of WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per Nomination. I've listed this in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as well. Thank you for your contributions. 05:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Some of the External links (the only references), are more like WP:SPAM. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings House[edit]

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

With the proviso that I struggle to see US news sources, I think this fails WP:GNG. It's a building, apparently of no particular merit, that was donated by someone who may perhaps have been a local worthy to a community association that also appears to be nothing special. I'm struggling to understand what the purpose of the article was intended to be as it seems to be more about the organisation that the buildings, albeit via a massive unsourced quotation. Sitush (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree notability is very doubtful but I don’t really see how we improve the encyclopaedia by being too rigorous with this kind of article. The house is a valued community asset and this kind of article is typical of the kind of content new users generate. I think we should relax about it. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an argument based on policy rather than sentiment? I realise that you categorise yourself as an Inclusionist but this is surely a ridiculous rationale even by that standard? Let's just allow every newbie to create whatever they want on whatever they want and, hey, we'll keep it because they're new and they say it is a local asset so it must be so? Why not go to the Pump and propose we scrap the notability guidelines? I am flabbergasted. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We improve the encyclopaedia by adhering to our notability policies. That way if someone discovers we have an article about something, they can be sure it has a certain level of notability. We also improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring there are sufficient reliable third-party sources to write an article per WP:WHYN.--Pontificalibus 08:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not "very doubtful," but nonexistent. The article is devoid of reliable sources about the subject, which don't seem to exist: such links as pop up in searches are passing mentions in local newspapers along the lines of "Saturday's parade begins at the corner of Oak and Hale Streets and ends at Hastings House, 14 Oak Street." And indeed, the article is typical of the type of content some new editors generate; what bearing does that have on the matter at hand? Perhaps if Mccapra is familiar enough with Beverly to confidently assert that the subject is a "valued community asset" (something that, even if true, meets no policy or guideline for inclusion), he can include some reliable sources in the article which provide the "substantive coverage" to the subject the GNG requires for inclusion? Ravenswing 12:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just remedied this AFD for its omission of tag for "Places" category, which brings to attention of editors focused on buildings, historic sites. Recommend keeping this open a week for wider discussion. --Doncram (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said in the nomination? It is actually about the organisation, rather like Talbot House. Why not just notify every project that exists and have done with it? In any event, the thing has only been open 2 days, so another week is just procrastination and - surprise, surprise - lawyering.- Sitush (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NBUILD, no significant coverage in independent sources. (I came here via the Places category). --Pontificalibus 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and User:Pontificalibus. Otr500 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is the age-old tale of the feud between the GNG and the SNGs, and we will not settle that score today. While ordinarily a SNG's presumption can be rebutted by showing that the GNG is not met, there is also no consensus here about that, because people disagree about whether the person's media coverage meets the GNG's requirements. Sandstein 20:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Claver[edit]

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

Not notable. This 22-year-old football player has appeared in a game twice, for the football team SC Cambuur, a second-tier team (albeit professional). The player current plays for Amsterdamsche FC, a third-tier team (semi-professional). He has scored no goals. The only sources cited are Soccerway and WorldFootball.net, which are statistics aggregating websites. Coverage in Dutch media is routine, mostly only because he was recently transferred. Though this article technically meets the requirements of WP:NFOOTY, that guideline says "presumed notable" or "generally regarded as notable", but doesn't say must be notable. The subject of this article–a minor player on a minor team–is not notable and should not have an encyclopedia article. ^Leviv_ich 17:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^Leviv_ich 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, despite knowing the outcome, fully well.∯WBG^converse 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claver passes WP:NFOOTY easily and that is the end of the matter.Dougal18 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. There are plenty of other sources out there - 1, 2 etc. (probably needs a Dutch speaker to find the useful ones) - but has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE? Doubtful, especially given that they've got the number of games played wrong... Giant Snowman 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, of course I did. Games played was taken from the article; I see you’ve updated it now to four games played instead of two. Is that what makes the difference between this being a keep or delete? As for media coverage, I addressed that in the nom: it’s routine coverage mostly of his recent transfer and his signing a few years back, such as the two links you posted. Nothing significant that I can find. Got any other links? ^Leviv_ich 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sourcing, including significant coverage in the LC. Giant Snowman 11:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to GiantSnowman's source update - he clearly passes WP:NFOOTY and there's enough information out there (looks like it's all in Dutch) to improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful keep. NFOOTY and several other SNGs really need a major overhaul but, as the guidance stands, this passes. It's ridiculous, but it is what it is. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons mentioned above, namely that the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL. R96Skinner (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who made two appearances (a total of 55 minutes of play) with a fully-pro club. The article barely scrapes through the presumption of notability at NFOOTBALL, but as previous consensus has shown barely passing that bar is not enough especially when the GNG is not met (plenty of AfD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others). Although the single article on his professional debut at Cambuur (in LC) is significant coverage from a reliable, secondary source, nothing else online appears to meet that requirement. There are several articles published by his employers (Cambuur and AFC) which I don't believe are secondary sources, and a handful of name drops in transfer news and match reports on various blogs, etc. I can't see how this article satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NFOOTY is so damn laughable. There are so many thousands of people who have ever played football and assuming notability is preposterous. Playing two games for a second-tier team does not make you notable, and routine data of statistics and team trades is not substantive coverage per GNG. This circular reasoning that someone is notable because other people are notable must stop. A "presumption" of notability assumes that substantial sources are available but that is not always the case. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as others have pointed out. Smartyllama (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I have a question for editors arguing that NFOOTBALL is met (especially editors who argued similar articles did not meet NFOOTBALL in the many AfDs I linked above): Why are we ignoring the prior consensus established through dozens of earlier AfDs? Am I missing something here? Jogurney (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through those articles, half of them actually didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, which this guy does, and the other half are years old. They're totally irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD like this I remember was for Cosmos Munegabe (which is certainly from many years ago), an article which clearly met the minimum bar for NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability. There have been a series of similar AfDs I'm aware of over the past several years (I cut and pasted the list above from another experience WP:FOOTY editor's post). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Omotayo Omoseyin are more recent examples if you think we should ignore the older ones (though I have no idea why we would). I haven't edited here in recent months as much as I did in the past, so other WP:FOOTY editors probably know of many more recent AfDs that illustrate the same principle than I do. Jogurney (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NFOOTY is clearly met. In terms of GNG, I voted delete for Pinheiro because I could find absolutely nothing on him in Croatian media apart from his 20 minutes on the pitch, and while I voted keep for Omoseyin we couldn't actually verify his participation. Claver has been written about by Dutch press apart, interviewed on YouTube, et cetera. For instance, this is routine and doesn't count toward WP:GNG, but it demonstrates he's clearly been discussed in the media: [9]. I think GNG is probably satisfied through other articles, but is still exactly the type of coverage WP:NFOOTY assumes exists for notable players. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to stop scapping the bottom of the barrle. @ appearances with 55 minutes of play in fully professional play is ludicorously below any reasonable standard for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we need to have a conversation about how accommodating WP:NFOOTBALL is first, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)? You could probably purge a good number of articles based on the nominator's rationale alone. Jay eyem (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary. As I mentioned above, we have routinely deleted articles on the grounds presented by the nominator. I think this is another of those cases, but I see that others believe the sources must exist to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, possibly futile, at this time, but consensus changes. Routine coverage. Is that for real, 55 minutes of play time gets an article? Is the bar for NSPORT and/or footy so low to allow such non-notable subjects an article, just from being on a roster or playing a few minutes of a game? That is astounding. Not everything that has some sources are notable for an article. At least there is "some sources" here as opposed to the many sourced only from the external links section using only football rosters. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Moonlight Graham passes WP:GNG. But the SNG assumes you receive coverage if you've played in a fully pro league, as fully professional leagues receive consistent press coverage. Obviously it's rebuttable, some players don't get written about, but Claver has. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every professional athlete gets an article about their professional debut like this one by LC [10]. Every player who leaves a team gets a farewell message on the team's website like this three-sentence goodbye from 2nd-tier pro team Cambuur [11]. Every player who signs with a team gets a blurb like this [12] (four and a half sentences, one of which states that he had little playing time at Cambuur) and an announcement/profile/interview on the new team's website like this one from 3rd-tier semi-pro AFC [13] (in which he says he will look for a job now that he has more time in a lower-tier league, and in which he is asked "Did you give up your hopes for a professional career?"... sounds notable). This is all routine coverage. Only two of these sources are independent, and only one of them is (arguably) significant coverage, so I don't see GNG being met in this case. None of these articles conveys that he is a notable footballer. Is every professional footballer notable enough to be in the encyclopedia? Levivich 05:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "is every professional footballer notable enough to be in the encyclopedia" is yes, generally, as long as the league they play in is fully professional, because such a player will almost certainly receive press coverage like Claver. Claver also has mentions like [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is based solely on media coverage, then what is the difference between fame and notability? What's the difference between an encyclopedia that has an article on every pro footballer and a football almanac? Levivich 05:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG has always been predicated on reliable secondary sources. Notablity is "less than" fame - you don't have to be famous to be in the encyclopedia, but you do need to be covered by reliable secondary sources. Some professional football players are not, as noted above. Claver is. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or primary. WP:NFOOTY is, sadly, a discredited guideline, and in this case it's too far off the mark in meeting encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabotage Soundsystem[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The only articles which I can find that are anything more than a passing mention of the band are the Surfing magazine interview cited in the article (archived here [19]), which is a primary source interview that gives little detail about the band other than its members, and this one [20] which doesn't look like an RS to me. A redirect to Kaleo Wassman isn't a real possibility, as the only reason he has his own article is because he is supposedly a member of two notable bands... but this one is the second "notable" band, so if this article gets deleted then Wassman's article should be redirected as well, as he has no notability outside of the band Pepper. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find a single decent RS that would support notability. Britishfinance (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Zimmer (Ohio politician)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as a city councillor. Dayton OH is not a global city for the purposes of getting its city councillors over WP:NPOL #2, so the notability test a city councillor in Dayton would have to pass to get into Wikipedia is that he could be referenced to a volume and range and depth of media coverage that marks him out as a special case over and above most other city councillors -- but the only reference here is a legacy.com repost of his standard paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper classifieds, not actual journalism, so it's not a source that assists in demonstrating his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Politics of Dayton, Ohio maybe? I'm not sure he's even that notable, though. valereee (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPOL and there isn't enough sustained and significant enough coverage to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 7 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 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kalvani[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator. Concern was that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author) Hello, Respected Sir/Ma'am. Mr. Vijay Kalvani has been named on Forbes celebrity list 2015, he has been part of several television shows and also a couple of films. I think Forbes is a pretty good reliable source. Please let me know your take on that. Thank you very much. Mortalrahu (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me copy what I wrote over at User talk:GSS: "There's a Vijay Kalwani (notice the different spelling) listed as nominated, but anyone can be nominated. Arguably, a person who was one of the 100 chosen might be notable (but, probably that alone wouldn't be enough), but just nominated? No. I could be nominated and I don't even live in India, nor am I Indian or a celebrity." --Yamla (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "list of 100" is not notable and IMDb is not a reliable source that is also used in the "External links". Otr500 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Capizzi[edit]

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

Résumé-toned biography of a person with no strong claim of notability and no independent reliable sourcing to support it. The notability claims here are that he served on a city council and later as a county court judge -- but Dayton, OH is not a global city, so its city councillors are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, and county court judges are not automatically presumed notable just because they have staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers. For either of these claims, the notability test is the ability to cite enough reliable source media coverage about them to get them over WP:GNG, not just the ability to primary source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NORESUMES, plus it has been an unreferenced semi-stub for a while, averaging a minor edit or two per year. Not notable as per nom. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And yet another that doesn't seem clear to me. I wouldn't have assumed he was particularly notable, but he's got more pageviews than most. Is that of any relevance to our thinking? valereee (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 7 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 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike M. Liskany[edit]

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

Biography, tagged as unreferenced since 2007 without ever having a single reference added, of a person notable only as a city councillor. As always, city councillors are not handed the same guaranteed inclusion rights that state or national legislators get -- a city councillor has to either (a) serve in a global city on the order of NYC, Chicago, LA, Toronto or London, or (b) be sourceable to a volume and depth and range of coverage that marks him out as a special case over and above most other city councillors. But neither of those things are true here at all, and there's no strong evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to actually pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Politics of Dayton, Ohio. Single-term city councillor, not even sure a redirect is needed. valereee (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles lacks any references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail NPOL and Bearcat's analysis is convincing. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 9 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 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virendra Singh Patyal (Writer)[edit]

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

Biography supported entirely by IMDB links. Searches return no reliable sources about this person. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GNG --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. I don't see anything of substance written about this guy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Emmett[edit]

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

Mccapra tagged this for notability a couple of months ago. I think it's a borderline failure of WP:CREATIVE, the only independent, significant coverage (that I can access, a couple of the links are broken) is a local story about her wedding. However, as I say, it's borderline, so I'm erring on the side of caution and AFDing. SITH (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything on her in RS. I don't see how this could be borderline... it's a clear case of promotion where no notability exists. This is also a case of WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant sources to pass WP:Artist of WP:GNG: too soon.Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The 2007 article^WebCite from the BBC discusses Jessica Emmett's family background and her short film Row Your Boat that was featured in the Exodus Shorts film festival in Manchester. It is a solid source. There is also this 2011 article^WebCite in Banbury Guardian, which provides more biographical background. I could not find more significant coverage so I am very weakly supporting deletion.
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a thought: since the two articles are both about her film it's BLP1E as well. The second item is good but very short. The coverage is very sparse.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mavelstone Road[edit]

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

Ian.thomson tagged this for notability a couple of months ago. I'm inclined to conclude, after assessing the cited sources and undertaking a search for myself that this fails GNG. I'm opting for an AFD as opposed to a PROD due to the esoteric nature of WP:GEOROAD, so I'm community input on this proposal. SITH (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the claim in the article that the road notable because it is unpaved to meet the WP definition of notability. Furthermore, the bulk of the article seems to be OR. MB 18:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most roads don't have separate WP articles (see Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) and User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people) and there's nothing to suggest that this is notable. It does come up in passing mention in Google Books. Stotfold (house) on it probably wouldn't be a suitable target to merge to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Not written in way suitable for WP. Britishfinance (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nextwave. Tone 18:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Anger[edit]

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

Comicbook character who lacks real world notability (single award does not seem enough). Should be redirected to Nextwave (or a nextwave characters page if it exists but I was unable to find). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: To Nextwave. As I originally did. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Character was nominated for and won a significant industry award. Seems more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nextwave. While an award may be an indicator of notability, it is not enough to justify an independent article. The information on the award has already been merged into the Nextwave article, so I see no reason why this could not be simply redirect there at this point, unless further sources on this character can be located and listed here for discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The case is borderline and the article is reasonably constructed. If we Redirect, the information on the charachter is hidden for good? Britishfinance (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RankMF[edit]

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

Most references and other sources found online are usual corporate business with pr/promo slant. I have not been able to find sufficiently independent coverage in reliable sources. Therefore failing GNG and ORG. This is very much a "product" article with a promo slant. Questions about COI of the editor are unanswered - they only ever edited articles about SAMCO related topics. Therefore propose to delete or redirect to SAMCO. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Typical launch publicity does not amount to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails notability and is a promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game opera[edit]

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

Despite the decade old multiple issues this article has, I’m thinking either deletion or a merger with a short paragraph (with updated information compared to the decade old information) in the reality television article. Pahiy (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links to "Game Show Congress" are now spam. The other references look like junk. This is a made-up term; or at least a term with no adoption. I can't even find a proper reference to the term on google (despite the existance of this WP article for over a decade). Article is also junk and a candidate for WP:NUKEIT. Britishfinance (talk) 21:36, 9 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 18:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cocafulluckyar[edit]

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

Non notable island previously deleted via PROD. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this because it fails WP:V, I could find no reliable sources at all.--Pontificalibus 15:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty inclusionist regarding named geographic features, but there has to be some sourcing evident even for me. In this case (despite the nomination phrasing), this is about a beach on Kiltan Island. The island is real, and well-documented. I have no reason to believe that the beach on Kiltan isn't called this by at least some people. But there are simply no sources. The only non-mirror hit that Google can find (under either spelling or the Malayalam name, and including Google Books) is this very non-RS website. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the local name for the island's long beach; I can find essentially no sources that name any geographic features on Kiltan. And so whether this content is accurate or not, WP:V is the controlling policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reference to Cocafulluckyar on even the Lakshadweep UTA's website. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I though the name was a hoax when I saw it. Could be a local name for a small area but it has to be verifiable from some RS for inclusion. Such an RS just doesn't seem to exist. I could not find one. If this was previously deleted and re-created, do we need Salting? Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahveer Jafry[edit]

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

Previously deleted multiple times. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comedians and YouTubers are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — they need some evidence that they've achieved something noteworthy beyond simply existing. But three of the five footnotes cited here aren't reliable sources at all, and even the two that are reliable sources aren't helping very much — one is a short blurb covering him entirely in a non-notable context, while the other is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person. All of which means that exactly zero of these sources are contributing anything toward establishing him as notable per WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Salt may also be necessary, because in addition to the first discussion this has also been speedied two other times as a recreation of deleted content. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until notability is fully established. MehrajMir (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP should have a bot-search for "aspiring film maker and actor; currently a daily vlogger" which automatically deletes such BLPs. We may delete a few that should be saved, but will delete a far (far, far) greater quantity that should not be in WP. In this case, the subject clearly fails GNG. This should definately be salted given history. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rebellions[edit]

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

An unsourced list that fails WP:LISTN and is entirely WP:OR. It also mostly focuses on modern pop-culture without mentioning things from most past fiction/film, which is evidence that there wasn't much attention paid to which ones actually merited a mention. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources can be found discussing the list as a group (I have looked, and apart from some click-bait lists there is nothing). As it stands, it appears to be some OR cobbled together because it's WP:INTERESTING. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find sources so it passes WP:LISTN. For example: 5 great rebels in literature, Female Rebellion in Young Adult Dystopian Fiction and Revolution, Rebellion, Resistance: The Power of Story. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Typical Davidson horseshit. Third source isn't about fictional rebellions, first and second sources are more along the lines of disobedient or rebellious individuals than actual military revolutions. Why is this guy still tolerated here? He's been at this chicanery for years. 124.188.89.110 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the entries have their own articles dedicated to them, while others have content in their main articles. This list article has enough blue links to qualify as being a valid list article since it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 16:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIRECTORY, in particular #1 -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, information is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To go further, what information are we talking about? There is no proof that any of the list items are accurate since there are no sources. Some of them are not even rebellions, for example, Yuri from Command and Conquer is more of a world domination supervillain and Dumbledore's Army is a student organization. All of this potentially inaccurate or false content could not possibly be useful and the hodgepodge lack of organization is the very definition of indiscriminate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Andrew Davidson. Clearly a thorough search for sources brought up nothing that was actually about this topic, but rather a grab bag of sources that have similar names because of multiple meanings of the word "rebel" and a liberal interpretation of the word "fiction". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also per comments such as Zxcvbnm's immediately above, which bring back memories of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies: in that case, some clickbaity listicles were Googled up that actually dealt with the topic in question (as opposed to here, where they are on obviously unrelated topics), but they clearly couldn't support the content of the article as it existed (which was all OR, with most of inaccurate), and no effort was made to rewrite the article based on what sources were found. Obviously, even if sources are located for this topic, they are only useful to support the continued existence of an article that accurately reflected their contents, not a completely unsourced piece of OR that was mostly not even accurate to the fictional primary sources it was based on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NoCOBOL & Hijiri 88. The list is unsourced, and seems to be mostly cobbled together OR. As mentioned, the references listed here by Andrew D. are not about the same topic as the article, and thus are completely invalid as to providing notability to the topic. Even if the topic itself did prove itself notable enough to have a list, the current article would still have to go, because it is a terrible list that has no actual logic on the entries that it included, which includes a multitude of things that could not, in even the broadest terms, be considered a "rebel movement". 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of an article of fictional rebellions is possible (we have List of revolutions and rebellions), however this is so unstructured and undefined that it is pointless in its current form and really qualifies under WP:NUKEIT. It is a mix of computer-game rebellions (Sonic Hedgehog, Final Fantasy), movie (Star Wars), books (My Brother Sam is Dead) etc. Some don't even seem like rebellions. Can't imagine a reader finding this article useful. It should be deleted and maybe another editor will attempt a more structured and useful list. Britishfinance (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Ying[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. Singing arias on talent shows doesn't make one "famous for Yu opera performance". Performed in exactly 0 Yu opera productions. As a singer, she has released 2 albums, but I believe she still fails WP:MUSICBIO. The first reference is her official site, and the second is Baidu Baike. Timmyshin (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see some sources in Chinese - [21][22], but nothing significant more recently apart from passing mentions, suggesting that the novelty of her being a child singer has worn off once she grew older. I'm doubtful that the few articles on her when she was younger is sufficient to establish her notability. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Achillefs Tzioufas[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, nothing to support the claim that he is "noted in particular" for his 2018 proof. Draft:Achillefs Tzioufas already rejected for same reasons. Fram (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The disputed phrase has been changed. Rmr312. Please compare with page Richard Timothy Durrett. The notability is indirect -- i.e. the importance of the conjecture lies on the person stating it originally in the literature!

"Indirect notability" is in general not accepted on enwiki. What you need to show is that other reliable, independent sources have discussed Tzioufas (in general or for the 2018 proof). Fram (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please check with WP:ACADEMIC !!!

Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.

This entry qualifies, provided that entry Richard Timothy Durrett grants that an open problem posed by him in several books and reviews is a major problem. Should you desire to remove both then please notify! Rmr312.

Delete Subject clearly does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Criterion 1 must be verified with reliable, independent sources, and I quote from WP:ACADEMIC 'Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources are notable.' The subjects own paper is not sufficient. Further explanation is given, and I quote from WP:ACADEMIC 'In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.' In this case there are NO other references that mention the subjects work. I reviewed the article on AfC, and provided further explanation when the editor left a question on my talk page. The lack of notability was also explained to the editor when they left a question at WP:AFCHD. The editor has also tried to rewrite the notability requirements, removing the clause that I have quoted. David.moreno72 09:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete The proof was published only in 2018, so it didn't yet have time to garner any interest. Rmr321, it really is not done to change our notability guidelines so that they match you position in an AfD discussion. Also, I'm at a loss what you mean with "indirect notability", but it sounds like something that is covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. AS for comparing this one to other articles, please see WP:WAX. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fram, Randykitty,

I am a senior Professor in Math and I have never seen anything written alike the claims of Prof. Tzioufas' paper in 40 years in Academia. I do respect your right to make a living out of doing this (if you can't find anything honest to do with yourselves), however the general principle is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone that sees something unprecedentedly notable and wishes to contribute an article with respect to it, should be at least permitted to do so.

Therefore, if any of you has ever seen a claim like this in a mathematics journal as that written in the abstract of the sited paper:

line 3. This resolves a longstanding open problem pointed out to in several instances in the literature.

and, more in particular, in a journal anywhere near as prestigious and highly respected as the Journal of Statistical Physics edited by Professor Joel Lebowitz himself, please give me a heads up and I will leave this page with many apologies. However, as I very much doubt any such notable incident has taken place in the recent history of mathematics, I urge you to stop hassling my honest effort to make this fact known to honest readers!

Furthermore let me argue a bit seriously semantics with you chaps: a claim published at the Journal of Statistical Physics, which is precisely what is Prof Tzioufas entry about, is by DEFINITION A RELIABLE SOURCE. And here is what I mean by definition.

1. Quoting from the definition of source:

Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

2. Quoting from the definition of reliability:

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

3. As regards Significance: Are you claiming yourselves that a 30 year old conjecture posed originally by Richard Timothy Durrett himself is insignificant? Not to mention the subject the fact that this is the Central limit theorem

Now, please note that I have an actual job to do, instead of arguing gory detail and nuisance that anyone can amend every now and then to her benefits in order to make a living out of it. And please try to hassle another person instead of damaging your own reputation here. In conclusion, I reckon that either I am dealing with illiterate's bullying, or you are merely bullies.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I'm unmasked! You got it, Rmr312, I'm a bully with nothing better to do than make a living out of editing WP (I wish...) If you have a moment out of your busy life as a senior professor, could you have a quick look at WP:NPA? And I thank you for explaining Wikipedia to us, but I'm afraid that you will have to adapt to WP, not the other way around. So, yep, we have a reliable source that Tzioufas Achillefs published an article, nobody contests that. What we do not have, though, is any evidence that anybody has paid any attention to this article (beyond the journal's editor and reviewers, of course). That are the reliable sources that we need. Not the acknowledged fact that Tzioufas Achillefs publishes articles, but that those articles have been noted. And I'm afraid that we cannot just take your word for it, senior professor or not. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I am actually a retired Nobel Prize winner... So I strongly recommend that you read and try to understand WP:ACADEMIC again, plus the links therein to other policies and guidelines. And once you have shown us evidence that Tzioufas Achillefs has been noted (as opposed to "has written papers"), I'll change my !vote immediately from delete to keep. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Is your claim of being a Nobel laureate a bit of amusing rhetorical sarcasm or is it a fact? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assuming sarcasm but we have had at least one Fields medalist as an active editor here. Alas, we seem to have driven him away two years ago by trying to delete too many of the stubs he was creating. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites for this person's work are miles below the standard needed to pass WP:Prof#C1. If the subject's proof is so wonderful, the citations will show it in the course of time. We can wait. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even getting a real review in MathSciNet for MR 3800895, just a copy-and-paste of the abstract, is not a good sign for the mathematical significance of this new result. (Don't get me wrong, lots of my papers don't get reviews either, but it's a signal that the mathematicians don't care, in my case because the papers are CS more than math.) At least the paper is listed in MathSciNet, so it is a legitimate result. Tea-leaf reading aside, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. And without evidence we can't just rely on the assertions of editors here that he's done something important — we need to rely on reliable sources for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being academically notable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems perfectly plausible that this will in the course of time be considered notable, with secondary sources, and its author simply didn't understand Wikipedia's criteria. Some of the language here seems disrespectful to the creator of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article has been actively adding related material to the articles Contact process (mathematics) and List of unsolved problems in mathematics. It would be beneficial if someone had a non-template-based discussion with them about the purpose of Wikipedia and our standards. (And probably also WP:COI.) --JBL (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator blanked this AfD with a rude message and was soon afterwards given a short block for edit warring on the unsolved problems list. Maybe they'll be more contrite when they come back? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 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. Sandstein 07:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samitha Erandathi Mudunkotuwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. It has been identified as non-notable since July 2018 and no additional information/references have been provided since then. Of the 3 references that have been provided two are user -generated content and therefore unreliable sources. The third is a news paper interview with the individual's husband - which should be considered a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet GNG -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:39, 4 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 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special Force - ParaCommando Division[edit]

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

The contents in the page seems imaginary. There is no reference about the existence of something called Special Force - ParaCommando Division. Even the formation about which the article is about has not been created. An article which describes something that does not exist and has no reference of possibility of ever being created should not be in Wikipedia. SRS 00 t@lk, 19:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the cited sources mention the putative division, and the usual searches haven't turned up sources. Perhaps closer to 2030 something will have been written about it in independent, reliable, secondary sources, but until then delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh) - the brigade which is, per the 2030 plan, supposed to grow to a division. Sourced future plans for units have a place in the unit page. Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content per Icewhiz; delete (merge without redirect) article name, which appears inappropriate. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Icewhiz. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Merge and delete is not possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those recommending merge (Icewhiz—Buckshot06—আফতাবুজ্জামান): I'm willing to consider merge as an alternative to deletion if someone will identify a reliably sourced factoid in Special Force - ParaCommando Division that isn't already in Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh). --Worldbruce (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you can't identify anything. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Worldbruce: Following an re-examination of the sources in the article - I concur with Worldbruce. Specifically, I don't see which source discusses this as being a division in the Forces Goal 2030 plan. Some of the sources (dailystar) are misrepresented (source says 2nd battalion -> article 2nd brigade). I apologize for not being through in evaluating the cited sources in the article, but would suggest that future nominations based a WP:V fail say state specifically that the cited sources are misrepresented. I am striking my merge !vote and changing to delete on the basis that the contents fail WP:V. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh) article exists; which the most credilbe references in this article, per The Daily Star (and even the photo) are really referring to. The reference that a new Division is being formed in 2030 to absord the existing Brigade is junk. Could even be a hoax. WP:NUKEIT Britishfinance (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've read over this AfD a few times, and I realize its contentious and likely the subject of an ArbCom case, so I'll explain my reasoning here as best I can:

Despite this being a very long discussion, the consensus is actually pretty clear. Several of the comments advocating keeping the article had no basis in our policies and guidelines. Others, which attempted to appeal to policies and guidelines did so relatively weakly: references to employer profiles can be used in theory to meet WP:NPROF criteria such as being a named chair, but no one is really arguing that here, and there is a consensus that she does not meet it. Employer profiles generally are not accepted as evidence for meeting the GNG. Google Scholar is similar: simple listing in its hits is usually not enough to qualify as an RS, even for the purposes of PROF.

The argument on being on the research team seems to come from PROF1. Unfortunately, it requires significant coverage in independent sources, which have not been produced here.

Then there is the argument from WP:BIO, somehow claiming that the introductory paragraph that tries to explain to new editors the concept of notability exempts living persons from the requirements of the GNG. Nothing could be further from the truth: in practice, our sourcing standards for BLP notability are some of the highest on the project, and even if we go off of the text of WP:BIO itself, it demonstrates that argument not to be the case: WP:BASIC is just a regurgitation of the GNG and is the first guideline mentioned in the actual body of that SNG.

Finally, having gone through the most prominent keep arguments, the delete arguments simply were the strongest: there exists virtually no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The main claim here outside of the local YWCA article is a featured employee profile by her employer. As was pointed out and achieved consensus amongst the voters who addressed it, this is not independent coverage in secondary sourcing.

On the whole, the arguments for deletion were significantly stronger than the arguments to keep, and when combined with the numerical consensus, I think the outcome here is fairly clear, so I am closing it as delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Phelps[edit]

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

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}}.

De-prodded. Not close to passing NPROF or GNG. The "2017 YWCA Knoxville Tribute to Women in the Women technology, research, and innovation category" is not a significant award. Sources in the article do not establish notability: (numbering per this version)

ref1+ref13(duplicate) - knoxnews - local source. Single paragraph on her.

ref2 - tnstate alumni newspaper - contains only "Clarice E. Phelps, 2003" - possibly a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue (as one can not be sure this is the same Phelps).

ref3 - tnstate 2003 commencement notice - same issue as ref2.

ref4 - utsports - again a local source. Single line on Phelps.

ref5 - tennesseeaquaticproject - contains only "Clarice Salone, (MLK) Tennessee State University, U.S. Navy Officer" - again - a misuse of a PRIMARYish source for a BLP - we can't know this is the same individual.

ref6 - nuclear.engr.utexas.edu - ditto - single line where a Clarice Phelps is listed as a MS student - no way to ascertain this is the same Phelps.

ref7 - alumnius.net listing - probably self-published, and not in-depth regardless.

ref8 - www.navysite.de - probably self-published - and a single line regardless.

ref9+ref10 (duplicate) - ORNL - not terribly in-depth bio/profile at her employer ORNL. Not independent.

ref11 - her name as a co-author on a conference poster.

ref12 - ORNL - her employer - brief PR release - single paragraph on Phelps following her 2017 Knoxville YWCA Tribute Award.

So - while we do have a bit of a WP:REFBOMB (including two duplicates) - none of the references in the article establish notability. Some are misuse of PRIMARYish references for a BLP. In my BEFORE I was unable to find anything significant on this Phelps (the google-book hits are all for different people with this name with the possible exception of a namedrop in a long thank-you list in the acknowledgements of a 2017 book). Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - please note WP:CANVASSing on twitter - [23] for this AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And more canvassing - [24]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! Yes some of us long term contributors talk about our Wikipedia interests on Twitter. It's part of having a community. Thanks for noticing. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as a long-term Wikipedia user, Fæ, I'm sure you're familiar with the inappropriate notification guideline, please can you explain how your tweet (archive) can be considered appropriate in terms of message and transparency as defined by the aforementioned guideline? SITH (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Comment withdrawn per Fæ's explanation of how Twitter works below. SITH (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a long term contributor, I worked on a lot of project policies. The canvassing guideline in no way whatsoever, makes any assertion that stops our contributors tweeting about their interests, or about what they are currently doing on Wikipedia. You are conflating notifications with generally posting off wiki on social media, in addition you are conflating "stealth" canvasing off-wiki with public and clearly open tweeting. I'll presume good faith by concluding that you might not understand exactly how tweets work. It is bad form to misuse Wikipedia policies or guidelines to attempt to censor or intimidate free speech off wiki. So, you know, it's best not to do that. --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, I'm not trying to intimidate off wiki, thanks for assuming good faith, I'm not on Twitter myself so I have little clue how it works, I assumed the audience was pre-set and not open and public. My apologies. SITH (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is a semi-public medium - most tweets are public (with some caveats - users you block can't see your tweets when they are logged in + private tweets also exist), but they are seen (mostly - unless you search for them) by your followers. While everyone is entailed for free speech, if a tweet is out there that - "The @Wikipedia page of Dr Clarice Phelps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps …), researcher @ORNL, has been nominated for deletion because the references fail to establish notability. 🙏🏽 Please vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarice_Phelps … and help improve the biography. #BHM #womeninSTEM - calling for your followers to vote - then without getting into whether this is sanction-able or not (and I shall note I did not take this to AN/I - though there is a similar thread - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear stealth canvassing by User:Fredrick eagles on twitter canvassing there) - it affects the AfD close - the closer here needs to be aware that the voters are composed not only of users who regularly participate in AfDs (via regular AfD publication methods) but rather also of users who got here following prodding/advertising via tweets. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put up or shut up. What you are doing by misusing Wikipedia guidelines to grief contributors to this AfD, is direct intimidation against volunteers discussing their Wikimedia activities on Twitter. Projects and user groups like WM-LGBT+ and WomenInRed frequently use these off-wiki public channels, there is nothing stealth, covert or malign about it.

However if you intend mentioning me anywhere else, a friendly tip, you had better double check your facts, as you are making easily avoidable mistakes as to who wrote what and treading very close to the line with regard to outing other contributors by doxxing accounts they have not previously mentioned on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of any doubt - I merely referenced two public tweets (+quoted one). I did not suggest in any way they were made by any particular Wikipedia user(s).Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My 2¢: WP:CANVASS is a stupid guideline that needs major overhauling anyway. There is a big difference between the ANI canvassing thread and the tweets here: the ANI tweet was directed ("@") various users, and explicitly told users where to go and what to write. There is (and should be) nothing wrong with generally bringing attention to a discussion, either on- or off-wiki. We want more voices, not less. ^Leviv_ich 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with more voices is that they are almost always easy manipulable and hardly has any knowledge of policies/guidelines.

I'd disagree, we have seen WP:AFD dominated by outside contributors with no knowledge of wikipedia or how it works. It often gets quite unpleasant when that happens, I can remember several over articles during the "Occupy" movement of a few years ago. AFD were dominated by ill-informed people shouting to keep "their" article. I would also point out the link doesn't out anyone as a wikipedia editor, its only become linked to one as that editor confirmed their identity. In actual fact, I don't see the Twitter comment as that bad, since asks for help to improve the article but I would suggest that if you're making such a request it should be declared. W C M_email 12:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I create an article over the locally famed confectionery shop, which is quite renowned (to me) and attracts people from nearby 2-3 towns during Christmas esp. but 'regretably' has got only two sparse coverages in news-papers (one of them, as a landmark, in a story of gruesome murder!). Once, the article gets inevitably AfD-ed, if I post that link in a semi-closed FB-group of the town-inhabitants, I can assure you that there will be at-least 20 crazy-heads who does think that the shop ought be featured over en-wiki. Some of them will bother to read policies and since, that does not go their way, will sign off with IAR and about how the bureaucratic rules-based inflexibility is affecting confectionary-shops.

For another example, you make a post over a forum:- Hey, our nation's pride is at stake here. Wikipedian nutjobs are saying that we lost the war. But, how can we lose any war? and thus, manifests the ARBIPA drama-fests.

Obviously, there's some systemic bias at play and she ain't any confectionery shop but allowing canvassing is going down a slippery slope.∯WBG^converse 13:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for me she gets over the notability bar, specifically:

Her employer (ORNL) is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. where she is a project manager and researcher.
This ORNL write-up does not appear to be a source currently in the article, but it's in-depth and has a short video: [25] (the ORNL cites currently are [26] and [27])
I think we can know she is the same person as Clarice Salone because that's what her ORCID says [28]
A few Goggle Scholar hits [29] [30] [31] [32] ^Leviv_ich 08:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: - authoring a few papers is not sufficient for NPROF (nor is being a project manager and researcher at ORNL). None of the other sources you presented are independent, in-depth, secondary sources (notably - her employer is not an independent source) - and thus do not establish WP:GNG. Please cite a specific notability guideline or policy she meets. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I don't view AfD notability as being a matter of "checking the boxes" on some policy or guideline. In my view, the sum total of the RSes establish her notability, even if no single RS nails the exact criteria of NPROF or GNG. Having an article on her meets the spirit of community consensus as evidenced by our policies and guidelines, even if it doesn't technically meet the letter of those policies and guidelines. Anyway, as explained elsewhere, it's not OSE to point out systemic bias. Women scientists of color have historically been underrepresented in RSes, so it's natural that we will have a hard time finding RSes on them.

"No firm rules" is a pillar and IAR is a policy. Frankly, I don't even care what the notability guidelines have to say in these cases. It is absolutely not in the keeping of the basic mission of building an encyclopedia to not have an article on nuclear researcher Clarice Phelps, but yet have an article on 22-year-old, 3rd-tier, 2-career-appearances, no-goals-scored football player Cody Claver (which I just AfD'd). There are over 100,000 biographies just in football alone, never mind other sports. Yet biographies of scientists and women are vastly lacking, even with all the efforts in recent years.

At bottom, I vote keep because this article deserves to be in the encyclopedia. And it's looking like snow outside to me. ^Leviv_ich 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the inclusion standards in another area is piss-pathetic and any AfD is subject to common-sense-deviant groupthink, does not entitle to make the inclusion standards in other areas pathetic. It's not a competition to reach the abyss or so I think. FWIW, I would support some draconian reform of NFOOTY.∯WBG^converse 13:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is based on the idea of notability but that is not a policy while WP:ATD, WP:IAR, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE are four separate policies which all indicate that we should not be deleting this page. To consider the overall effect on the encyclopedia, consider an article which currently appears on the front page: Edward Stanley, who is lauded for his short playing career in which he "scored no runs, and took no catches or wickets". That's an entertaining short piece and I was especially impressed by the fine mustache sported by the subject. The article in question is somewhat different but is a worthy addition to the encyclopedia in other ways. To delete one but not the other would be systemic bias and we're better off keeping them both. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:NPOV are policy - and can not be met here given the lack of independent reliable sources, which is also a WP:BLP concern. WP:NOTSOAP is policy as well - the only bio possible here (and a very brief one at that) is based on ORNL PR / personal promotion.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any WP:V and WP:NPOV problems – everything seems to be well cited and the language seems reasonably free of hype and peacock. The sources seem just as good as those for the cricketing major. How is that sportsmen and soldiers don't get attacked on the same basis? That's the systemic bias. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, and poor OSE at that. This page, ignoring her name in a commencement list or a self-written line on navybuddies.com is sourced to ORNL PR - [33][34] - there is not a single in-depth, secondary, reliable source. Our cricketer friend (who was also an army major and the inspector General of the Houssa Force in Lagos, Nigeria) mainly sourced to a book published in 2016 ([35]) - and, I'll note, seems a bit borderline in terms of notability (but at least has an independent secondary source which is possibly also reliable). How about you point to a single WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT source on this page (or better yet - two)? Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE explains that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So sportmen, soldiers and scientists should be treated in a consistent way. Edward Stanley did his bit for the team and gets a place in Wikipedia because he was playing at the highest level. The subject in question did her bit for another team effort and that was at the highest level too. Both pages should stay. Andrew D. (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, you are lawyering and bludgeoning to the nth degree again. It isn't a good look. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's exactly the sort of STEM role model we need - per, for example, https://www.ornl.gov/news/clarice-phelps-dedicated-service-science-and-community . I see nothing to be gained by the deletion of the article; en.wikipedia will not be improved by such an action. I see significant losses should the article be deleted: it would confirm our de facto commitment to systematic bias and our bureaucratic rules-based inflexibility. Icewhiz, you've made your point. Your time now would be better spent writing another female biog, than wikilawyering in this thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of encyclopaedic benefit here, so GNG can be rationalized, if anyone wishes to do that. Being overly literal with specific variations of the notability guidelines starts to look like wikilawyering to shore up systemic bias. --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument about lawyering in relation to systemic bias can easily be turned round, and indeed that is evident in comments above. That there are private Wikipedia-centric mailing lists for people interested in gender gap issues also doesn't bode well, given that at least one of those in its previous public form was sometimes used for canvassing. (You'll know which one I am on about because you were a part of it.) And anyone with half a brain and experience of Wikipedia would know it is a bad idea to start Tweeting about this kind of thing because it is likely to backfire. - Sitush (talk)

Keep Reading arguments above. Agree with them --Kippelboy (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notwithstanding my objection to the Twitter canvassing, I think being on a team which discovers a chemical element is enough to pass GNG or BIO. I agree with the nominator insofar as it needs toning down a bit, but tone is a problem which seems to plague articles about academics. I'd also like to note that I don't agree with the above arguments for inclusion on the basis of Phelps being [a] STEM role model, notability guidelines should be enough of a reason to include her on merits without resorting to identitarianism. SITH (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StraussInTheHouse: - please look at Tennessine#Discovery to see just how wide this team was (multi-institution, multi-country). Announcements from the time - e.g. this do not mention Phelps. Phelps was involved in some of the pre-cursor chemical work in ONRL (purification of Bk-249) - part of a very large team in ONRL. If we were to confer notability on this basis - then this would extend notability to hundreds, possibly thousands, of junior research workers involved in the wider effort here (and in similar projects). Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: duly noted, I will look at all of the sources and come back and either reinstate or change my vote. Thanks, SITH (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tennessine#Discovery: after going through the sources one by one and doing both online and offline searches for more sources, I agree with Icewhiz's initial analysis of the sources. I'd love to vote keep but the only grounds for doing so now are not based on notability but on personal feelings. I'm withdrawing my keep !vote but leaving the comment intact to ensure my objection to the canvassing is noted. SITH (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed from keep and then redirect): per my original comments and per the discovery that "on the team which discovered the element" is a reduction. The paper doesn't list her name. SITH (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was part of a small team that helped discover an element - this is not trivial and I believe her contributions deserve a space on Wikipedia. I tried very hard to find references, and since the page was written, a few more can be found, and have been added. I have asked people to help improve the page on Twitter - I wasn't aware this kind of 'canvassing' was frowned upon, but am interested into what's wrong with it. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A very large team - a multinational team.If we were to assume notability being a research scientist on a large multi-national project - then we would be conferring notability on all scientists involved in the Large Hadron Collider (and the discovery of Higgs boson) - over 10,000 in all. Do you have any coverage covering element-117 (as opposed to Phelps herself) that mentions Phelps? I've looked - I've failed to find any - in fact, I failed to find any mention of 117 and Phelps prior to 2016 (the announcement of the discovery being in April 2010) - and what I do see post-2016 is coverage of Phelps (e.g. on ORNL) mentioning she was involved in this very large project (as many others at ORNL were). Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tennessine, as this is a clear BLP1E. ♟♙ (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG, per Levivich. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - during the course of this AfD the PhD and Msc degrees previously in our article were struck (as of 2019, per her LinkedIn page (as well as a list of students at utexas which was used as a source in our article) she is still a msc student) for failing V. As for her role in 117 - 117 was announced in April 2010. Phelps, per her LinkedIn page - [36] joined ORNL in 2009 and held the job title of Nuclear Operations Technician at the time.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies almost entirely on PRIMARY sources about a bachelor's degree level project administrator at a notable scientific research institution. She has worked on educational outreach projects encouraging young women from minority communities to aspire to STEM careers. Problem is ALL SOURCES are PRIMARY with the exception of a single local news story about 22 local women being honored by the YWCA for making wonderful contributions to the community. Each of the 22 gets a photo and a brief paragraph in the Knoxville paper. She did present a poster at the poster session of a scientific meeting, and has signed publications, including 2 where she is the first author. (Her bio at Oak Ridge Lab here: [37]) She may well be working on an advanced degree. But she is not a notable scientist at present. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping R8R and Double sharp as the primary editors of the FA Tennessine, an article where Phelps doesn't currently appear. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz. Wait until her career develops, then perhaps recreate the page. oncamera 04:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From reading this discussion and the article, I do not exactly understand why this scientist is considered notable. As per the article's lead section, the main reason is that she was on a team that provided a target for the discovery of element 117. To make that entirely clear: she did not discover a chemical element and she wasn't a part of the team that made the discovery. The discoverers were those who conducted the experiment in Russia in 2009--2010 and those who later analyzed the data obtained in that experiment. She was a part of the team that provided necessary equipment for that discovery, nothing less but nothing more. While that was indeed of crucial importance for the discovery (though not a part of it), I don't see how that makes everybody involved in making the target personally notable. She was not even the leader of that group. If there ever was a person of notability gained from that alone, that would be Joseph Hamilton (I will note that he does not have a Wikipedia article for whatever reason). If that is the reason why she has an article at all (and it appears to me it is), then my judgment is that she does not pass WP:GNG. If there is nothing she has done that passes GNG, then the sum of what she has done does not have her pass it either (though it may be the reason for somebody to give her enough coverage that would help pass it).

I plead to everyone not to use Wikipedia as a means to make a sociopolitical statement, however noble your intentions may be. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and that it should be. We're not writing a new edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. On this ground, I advise against invocation of WP:IAR.--R8R (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 1) Delete (summoned by ping above). I'm sorry, but if she's notable, then so must thousands of others who worked on large multinational scientific projects, as Icewhiz wrote. The tennessine article rightly does not mention her, as otherwise it would get bogged down listing hundreds and thousands of names.
(The above was written before I edit-conflicted; I also agree with R8R's comment.) Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of E. M. Gregory and Icewhiz. I think there are some fundamental flaws in the reasoning of some of the keep !votes above, notably regarding the scale of the scientific research team or the nature of her qualifications. I also think that the YWCA award carries little weight: a notable award recognising scientific achievement made by a peer-led group would mean something but a non-notable one made by a non-specialist organisation that was clearly trying to promote a social cause at the time probably says more about the organisation than the awardees. I also do not agree with the implied suggestion that it is an article worthy of keeping simply because it is about a woman of colour involved in STEM: we reflect the world as it is per reliable sources etc but should leave the social engineering to others. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many people were involved in the discovery of Tennessine, including more than 50 at Oak Ridge alone. [38] The YWCA Knoxville story is not sufficient to establish notability either (we don't even seem to have an article about that award). I hope she does become notable as a STEM role model, but Wikipedia should report on her after she has become notable, not be a vehicle that publicises her story. —Kusma (t·c) 12:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. TOOSOON. Numerous people were involved in the discovery of Tennesine and we may not be used for righting great wrongs. Fails NPROF as well as GNG, by a mile or so. ∯WBG^converse 12:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. Per R8R. I am minded that this person belongs to an under-represented group on wikipedia and I can understand those projects desire to remedy that. However, I don't think that creating articles on BLP that do not meet WP:GNG helps. I can see how this person could be notable in the future, I just don't see they are there yet. W C M_email 12:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose userfication, as the article contained gross misrepresentations of the subject. For instance - she was presented as a PhD (Dr.) - while she never presented herself as such. There are other mis-uses of WP:BLPPRIMARY material. A userfied version would still contain this false information in the article's history (as well as other falsehoods possibly un-spotted by us). Such a falsification is harmful to the subject of our article - if anyone were to think she was involved in a such CV misrepresentation (as opposed to Wikipedia editors unconnected to her - which is what appears to be the case here, but for someone unversed with Wikipedia - this isn't obvious) - then this can cause severe professional and academic harm to our BLP subject. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT If there were serious BLP considerations here it would have been an uncontroversial speedy delete. W C M_email 18:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject is not yet notable; obituaries written decades from now might pull her over the line. All the keep !votes I see are ILIKEIT/ IAR arguments from editors who think notability is whatever they want it to be. Wikipedia is not here to pursue social justice. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman, with due respect, I think obituaries written decades from now is unnecessarily gross. Can you strike that, please? ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: I think you've read something into my comment that's not there. While we have SNGs (like PROF, MUSICBIO, RODEO, SOLDIER, NPOL) for the living, most people will not pass GNG until after their death, especially since historians won't start writing until well-after the fact. (Obit-based bios like Adrianne Wadewitz and Aaron Swartz come to mind.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is all getting a bit over excited. It appears that mistakenly calling some "Dr" is a "gross misrepresentation". I also totally misunderstood Jess's tweet as I thought it was encouraging me to improve the article - which I did. Was this wrong? Should I revert? I have made 100K similar edits and people did encourage me to make them. This may take some time. Could we consider having a policy where we do improve articles and we are allowed to encourage others. Victuallers (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers, overexcited? Nah. She put up a war-cry for people to chime in, they do chime in............. ∯WBG^converse 13:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I see anyone tweet in future about an AfD when they're a registered user here, I'll ask for them to be banned. Enough is enough with this blatant stuff from special interest groups determined to right great wrongs here. I can kind of understand it if the person is a newcomer but when they've been here a while there is no excuse for it. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with "special interest groups", Sitush? Do you want noninterested groups here? Should we notify WikiProject Belgium for this AfD? Nom has correctly, and per strong advise by the AfD instructions, notified "interested projects and editors" such as list of Women-related deletion discussions and of course the article creator [39] (would the creator not have a special interest?). All this is per instruction. Simple: WP:AFD and WP:CANVASS do not prohibit notifying interested groups. And while the guideline is outdated for not covering offwiki forums, you have no ground to extend your non-argument to outside twitter.

Also, worrying is that your attitude may lead to doxing if not by letter then by intention, seeing your contributions here.

Meanwhile, you have not argued (at all) why the notifications on twitter would be CANVASsing (worse: you say If I see anyone tweet ... banned, i.e., irrespective of CANVASSy content or not; that's "banned" not just "blocked"). Canvassing should be determined by these criteria, and none of them is referring to "special interest". Now one might call the two tweets, linked to in top, a bit rigging (for example, one says "vote" not "!vote"), but you have not written a word about such judgement.

And none of your blocking, doxxing, and accusing is helping the XfD it is about. Your actions would not improve the XfD one iota, because all are outside of it. Block a dozen editors, ban them even: the XfD may still be poor and corrupted. The solution is simple: When canvassing or possible canvassing is detected, notify the thread and put {{notavote}} in top — just as was done in this thread. Then have the closing admin make better decisions: for example throw out or downgrade possible canvassed (!)votes and say so in the conclusion; or just read the argumentation for quality (as the closing admin is always supposed to do, but alas). BTW, canvassing is not an argument for/against deletion. One needs to digest the discussion always. (ping StraussInTheHouse SITH).

-DePiep (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand what my problem is with campaigning special interest groups (inherent bias, canvass, RGW etc) , and you haven't noticed that umpteen admins are agreeing with my concerns about what you say might be doxxing etc, then I hold no hope. And if you think an admin can spot regular contributors who may have been canvassed in an AfD by such a group then I really do despair. We are being infested by a group of (sometimes professional) campaigners - and it is in addition COI, paid editing etc when it gets to that state but, being WMF acolytes, they're clever and claim merely to be facilitating. You might not be bothered but surely you can see why many people would be? - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re. "If you can't understand what my problem is with campaigning special interest groups, and you haven't noticed ...": that is because you did not write that. Don't blame me for not seeing what you did not write. (I note that you added "campaigning" only just now, not in first post). Meanwhile, you did not address a single point or question I made. So I repeat:

You have not pointed out why the twitter posts are trespassing WP:CANVASS lines, you did not mention a single criteria mentioned in there. You did not check the tweets for this. This means that yout judgement is by bias only, or worse. After sneaking in "campaigning" just now, even that's not enough to establish CANVASS, given the consequences you apply singlehandedly (and knowing that that conclusion was opposed already).

re "you think an admin can spot regular contributors who may have been canvassed" No, I wrote the opposite, read my post. And don't use "you think", just speak for yourself. Anyway, the admin could be helped to, right? Like adding notifications to the thread—as was done here. But your proposal does not help the admin nor the thread. Banning or even signalling a CANVASSING (this being by establishing not shouting btw), says nothing about canvassed opinions, duh. Why not spend time on recognising canvassed opinions (hint: test for argument quality)?

re "no hope, despair, not be bothered, you think": please stop introducing the whining, irrational tone. Do you suggest you have no arguments, right while we are talking about improving AfD?

What you did write is: If I see anyone tweet in future about an AfD when they're a registered user here, I'll ask for them to be banned". Clearly, this is without any judgement on the CANVASS indicators. Given the consequences you imply, this is serious matter. And again: banning editors does not help the XfD in any way or sense. You treat every mentioning of an XfD off-wiki as CANVASS. but notifying interest groups including the creator is part of the XfD guideline. How are these that not "special interest groups (inherent bias, canvass, RGW etc)"?

The consequenses are huge, invading, and might get you blocked. First there is the suggestion and stimulation to dox (even if you yourself stop short for under half of an inch short). Then, it is inviting an internet community (say twitter & enwiki) to harrass a twitter thread (timeline) and it contributors -- from your bad judgement. In this thread, after CANVASS accusations/suggestions, two experienced wiki editors already have complained about harrassment: It is bad form to misuse Wikipedia policies or guidelines to attempt to censor or intimidate free speech off wiki. -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add: your whole approach is one big WP:BAD FAITH excercise and punishment. Time to move away from that, before more damage is done. -DePiep (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userify The content looks unremarkably reasonable, after being checked for flubs, and it's not implausible that the subject could become notable for outreach activities in a year or so. That any errors or misrepresentations buried deep within the page history could bounce back and harm the subject strikes me as implausible, and that could be addressed by revdel'ing anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stale drafts get deleted before a year is up and the material that is present is easily found again, where it actually matters (eg: the YWCA award is just padding, scrabbling around to find something that might get her "over the line" for GNG). The errors, some of which are quite severe (notably re: qualifications and job status), were present until days ago, so we would need to revdel all the way back to the start. It isn't worth the effort. Just recreate if ever she satisfies whatever the requirements may be at the time. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to presume the draft would remain "stale". If it does, oh well. And "all the way back to the start" isn't actually very many revisions, for a page this new. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but it's not implausible that the subject could become notable for outreach activities in a year or so is more than six months, which is the usual draft cut-off point, IIRC. I do hope she becomes notable for something other than outreach as well as that's something of a poisoned chalice - it is an echo chamber thing and, hopefully, an aside to a successful career. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual time-scale is six months, but edits in that interval reset the clock. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the Fae's tweet that she is "part of the team that discovered Tennessine, #element 117", her name is not among the 33 authors of the discovery paper and this statement is an uncritical reduction of what happened. Without that, it's unclear where notability comes from with a lack of in-depth sources and the article does not pass GNG requirements. Nor do I believe the scientists who wrote that paper would be necessarily notable either; synthesizing heavy elements is a scientific joyride that has no clear purpose or implications, with Tennessine discussing the procedural and theoretical. Reywas92^Talk
Comment – article expanded: The article has been expanded since it was nominated: Clarice Phelps. ^Leviv_ich 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And just expanded again a bit. I would encourage editors to take a second look, please. ^Leviv_ich 02:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, what new is there, that you see as sufficient enough to pass GNG/NACADEMIC? ∯WBG^converse 03:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm not going to lobby. You and any other editor so inclined can read the article and decide for yourself, should this article be in the encyclopedia? If GNG/NACADEMIC or some other text file helps you answer the question, great. I've already stated my views on those guidelines in my first !vote. (TLDR version: GNG/NACADEMIC are not tests that need to be "passed," but guidelines to assist in determining notability.) ^Leviv_ich 04:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a lot of overciting (five sources to verify she has a chemistry degree!) and lot of use of primary/non-independent sources. - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really? It was an article in need of improvement at its original state. It's been improved. Looks better than about 75% of comparable articles about white male scientists that have passed AFD, or have never been questioned. And for the record, this is probably one of the very few "keeps" I've ever entered at AfD. Risker (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't been improved. Prose had been expanded. But we're still using navy buddies as a source. Along the way we've added sources - e.g. blog at navycs.com, navy.mil, or this ORNL pdf that don't even mention Phelps (a rather clear sign of WP:SYNTH). The article, as presently construed, is one big WP:BLP violation. What this article is still lacking are any independent, reliable, WP:INDEPTH, secondary sources that cover Phelps - and WP:REFBOMBing with references that don't satisfy that criteria (including several references that don't even mention Phelps!) does not establish notability in any way, shape, or form. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment @WBG: Changed my mind, gonna lobby. My responses to yours and others' comments above; I hope it convinces you.

Forget about WP:NACADEMIC because she is not an academic (For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement.). She works in government, not higher education, and she is engaged in laboratory research, not scholarly research (she doesn't publish papers about theory, she performs laboratory experiments and operates complicated machinery, and by "complicated machinery" I mean nuclear reactors).
The applicable notability guideline is WP:BLPNOTE, which guides us as follows (bold added):
For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. ... Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
2004 – 2008: Navy Nuclear Power Program; the "Navy Nukes", who deal with nuclear reactors that power submarines and aircraft carriers. "Significant, interesting, or unusual"?
2009 – present: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the largest government laboratory in the United States, with a billion dollar budget, built as part of the Manhattan Project. If you're a nuclear chemist or engineer, this is just about the top lab you can work. Oak Ridge is on the level of Los Alamos National Laboratory, CERN etc.
2010: part of the team that made one of the two elements that were fused to create tennessine, element 117. (Yes it's a large team of scientists, but it always is a large team of scientists for these sorts of major breakthroughs; nobody is claiming she singlehandedly discovered the element; it's still "significant, interesting, or unusual" that she was on the team.)
At Oak Ridge, she is the program manager for nickel-63 and selenium-75 production. She's in charge of their programs that make those isotopes. She's also worked on californium-252, which Oak Ridge produces 70% of the world's supply of, and plutonium-238 which is nuclear rocket fuel for deep space exploration. She specializes in making and working with super-heavy metals (transuranic elements are the heaviest of the heavy). She also works with nuclear engineering in medical applications like cancer treatments (radiation therapy). Is all this work "significant, interesting, or unusual"? More info on this stuff: [40]
Oak Ridge has thousands of employees; they only highlight a select few, and she is one of them. Video about her, in-depth write-up (not to be confused with her bio), another video where she's interviewed, and another. Check out these tweets: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. By comparison, a professor at Harvard who got that much promotion from Harvard would be considered notable for it. She is a notable member of a notable organization.
Radiochemical engineering is a small world. So, you're not going to find a lot of media coverage about nuclear chemists and the work they do. Even as compared with university academics, who publish a lot, a laboratory scientist just won't have as big of a footprint in the RSes. BLPNOTE recognizes this exact thing: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. By this standard, she has a large RS footprint, especially for a woman of color, one of the most underrepresented groups in science.
The YWCA Knoxville award is a "local" award, yes, but it's given to the woman who is the leader in her field in the Knoxville area. Well, when you're a nuclear scientist, being the top nuclear scientist in Knoxville (where Oak Ridge is) is like being the top actress in Hollywood or the top Imam in Mecca. YWCA is kind of a standard for "top woman in..." awards. Granted, this isn't like a Lifetime Achievement award or anything, but it's still a legit award. [47] [48] [49]

Phew! That's why she's notable. She meets WP:BLPNOTE because she is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention and to be recorded ... without her biography being the subject of secondary sources. ^Leviv_ich 06:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what's lacking in the long wall of text above is multiple significant, reliable, independent, secondary sources (WP:GNG). Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, which is not a requirement. GNG is not a requirement. WP:N says (bold added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ... If you read my wall of text, it explains how this article meets WP:BLPNOTE, one of the subject-specific guideline[s] listed in the box on the right. So argue about BLPNOTE, not GNG, not NACADEMIC. ^Leviv_ich 06:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: - BLPNOTE (or Wikipedia:Notability (people)) is not a SNG - it does contain a list of links to several SNGs (e.g. WP:NPOL or WP:NPROF). So does WP:N (on that little box to the right). If you are claiming this articles passes on a SNG - please cite the relevant SNG (please note that many of the SNGs merely create a presumption of notability - but still need to meet GNG). Specific SNG she meets, please ? Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, BLPNOTE is one of the links under "Subject-specific guideline" (it's "People") in the Notability box on the right of WP:N. BLPNOTE is listed at WP:SNG. What makes you say it is not a SNG? ^Leviv_ich 06:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (multiple) Levivich, your change of tack seems to be to an entirely subjective criteria, whereas the SNGs and GNG at least have some basis in assessment. I'm also concerned that you're suddenly suggesting that the very criteria that are most commonly used at AfD should be abandoned as insignificant or whatever. I'm sorry but this smacks of desperation, as does Risker's comment. This is the sort of thing the habitues of one of the old wikimedia-hosted gender mailing lists sometimes used to do in such circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I don't understand what your comment is about but my big long comment above is about how this article meets WP:N by meeting an SNG called BLPNOTE. Da faq you talking about gender mailing lists? ^Leviv_ich 07:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've clarified in the edits where we edit-conflicted. However, what you are quoting - significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded - *is* highly subjective and is very much subject to change over time. If she was the first etc then that would be something that is easier to assess subjectively but that she is one among several, and in a cohort that will should grow, means her status as deserving an article will recede over time, if it ever existed. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Another edit conflict, perhaps? My mention of the mailing list was because it used to sometimes get canvassing attempts and was a closed-shop. We've had canvassing attempts here, too. And some of the people !voting here were involved with the list. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLPNOTE is a whole big collection of SNGs - please cite the relevant criteria from within WP:BLPNOTE. Along the way, please also specify how writing an article based essentially entirely on ORNL PR does not fail WP:NOTSOAP. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, BLPNOTE says:

This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted, or further developed.

That's the notability guideline I am following. If you want to apply a different notability guideline, go ahead. ^Leviv_ich 07:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misreading the guideline. I suggest, you scroll on down past the introduction (which discusses generalities), and read WP:BASIC (the first section) - which the present article is a complete fail of (as it is lacking multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject). After you read that - please cite a specific SNG this subject meets, and specify how an article based on ORNL PR on their website (and not all that much of PR at that - hardly in-depth) doesn't fail WP:NOTSOAP.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. I'm not sure what part of "here's how she's notable without being the subject of secondary sources" you're not understanding. Look, it's one thing to be not persuaded by my argument above. I can respect that. But I don't have to keep trying until I've convinced you personally. So kindly stop badgering me and demanding that I "prove this" and "prove that". Stop telling me that because I disagree with you, I "completely misreading the guideline" or basically don't know shit. You gotta learn how to disagree without being a dick about it. I've said all I have to say on this. If you're not convinced by my lengthy walls of text and my expansion of the article, then you're not convinced. It's OK. Really. ^Leviv_ich 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP violations in the article are not convincing, no. AfD is based on policy, not opinion. You are citing WP:NPROF (which is actually a SNG). Please specify which of the 9 criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes (an elaboration of WP:NACADEMIC) this subject meets - she isn't even close to meeting any of the 9 criteria set in NACADEMIC.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once summoned to this discussion, I have been watching it with great interest. It appears to me that you've been misinterpreting a policy you refer to. WP:BIO says, Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Now I do say that this is nowhere near what you put as "she's notable without being the subject of secondary sources." I have not so far seen a guideline that would allow us an article on a subject that is not reflected in independent sources. What this guideline relieves us from is having to have a biography in a secondary source. Then again, you do say that she is not an academic---so why do you mention a guideline on academics in the first place? The turquoise quote not only mentions that it is about academics, something that you have scrapped in your lengthy argument where you also claimed the guideline on academics is not applicable, but also is listed under subtitle Academics and {{main|Wikipedia:Notability (academics)}}. In the very beginning of the said guideline, WP:NPROF, the "In a nutshell" template again defines that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject [text boldened in the original -- R8R] of secondary sources." After that, why would NPROF not be applicable is a mystery to me. Also it is clear that we are not entirely relieved from having to have some secondary sources, even if these are not focused on her.

As for your points 3--6: great. Yet how does any of these yield personal notability? It does not matter if the work that the person in question contributed to is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; it must be her own contribution to it that is. (Sentence in whole for reference: For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Note it is the person whose remarkability we must establish, not that of "Navy Nukes" or element 117.) This is what we need secondary sources for---not to describe her in detail, not to even be focused on her---to plain confirm that her contribution was important. If there is anything in these sources that could be attributed directly to her, it would be the production of the well-known isotopes. Does it make her cool? As a fan of the elements, I'd say, absolutely. Does it make her notable? I tend to think not. These isotopes are not unique, she did not discover them or a new way to produce them, or anything---at least, you haven't mentioned that.

Equally, I tend to think that being interviewed by her own employer is not much, as cool as the employer is. This is still a primary source (WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.). We are not relieved from need of having to have some secondary sources, even if her bio is not the subject of those. If she worked in, say, Berkeley and had been interviewed by ORNL---that would be much more impressive. If Dubna had issued her a special public thank-you for her berkelium target, that would've been something. If none except the people she works with pay enough attention to cover her at least in some way, then my take is that it speaks against her notability in an encyclopedia. Being in a profession is not enough. She must have had some impact in her profession to be notable. (Another quote from NPROF's "In a nutshell": Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.) I still don't see what exactly it would be. (A different option would be to become known as a notable activist, which I won't go in detail into because this is not claimed.)

Not a lot of coverage for scientists is a problem. Yet we still must have some coverage. The criterion is already easier to meet for a scientist to reflect that. And for the purposes of Wikipedia, I reject the way you say "especially [text italicized in the original -- R8R] for women of color," as if there were some special criteria for them. Everybody is equal, everybody is judged against the same criteria. It is only natural to me that there are more Wikipedia articles on white male scientists---solely because there are more white male scientists. If you wish to change that, please go ahead---but Wikipedia is not the place to start. If this effort succeeds, Wikipedia should reflect that. If it does not succeed, Wikipedia should reflect that. If the effort succeeds in part but not entirely, Wikipedia should reflect that. Regardless of what happens, Wikipedia should reflect that---and it is there entirely to reflect, not to drive the change.

As for the award: great. That's, along with much of what's been mentioned, a great personal achievement. My admiration shoots through the roof (not in a sarcastic way). But then again, it remains to be seen how does this affect her Wikipedia notability. The previously mentioned NPROF has a list of nine criteria, of which any one should be met. (You could help your case by showing us how any criterion is met.) The relevant criterion is criterion 2: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." But the award in question is not a national or international award.

I'd like to make it clear: I am not against scientists, women of color, or anyone. But by the very design of Wikipedia, we have to rely on external sources and provide equal treatment for all. If there's not enough coverage: well, that's a shame. Nobody is saying she is not notable in her own field of studies; she is only not notable for English Wikipedia for now, something that may change later. Please remember that not having an article in Wikipedia is not the end of the world.

All of the above is a subject to correction if you can identify anything as mistaken.--R8R (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Thank you for taking the time to write that thoughtful reply. A few areas where I think there are mistakes that may change your view:

There are two definitions of "academic" in the relevant guidelines:

WP:Notability (people)#Academics (aka WP:BIO): ...scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience)...
WP:Notability (academics) (aka WP:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC, etc.): For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. (italics in the original, bold added)

Now this is confusing and should be changed after this AfD closes, but the point is, WP:BIO#Academic has a different, broader definition than WP:NPROF, and under NPROF's definition, NPROF does not apply to her (she's not in higher education, and she doesn't do scholarly research, she does applied research). So that's why I'm at BIO and not NPROF. (That the "in a nutshell" box on NPROF quotes BIO#Academics, in my view, doesn't vitiate the clearer statement in the lead of NPROF saying explicitly what the definition of "academic" is for "this guideline".) In fact, NPROF explicitly says: It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. In this case, she's not notable under NPROF, but she is under BIO.

The articles' Ref #1, it's main source, is not a primary source. It is a secondary source, even if you consider it a totally non-independent, self-published source, it's still a secondary self-published source. I say that based on WP:Identifying and using self-published works#Doesn't "self-published" mean "primary"?: When the blog posting provides an analysis of an event that happened decades before, it is a secondary source for its subject matter. Her giving an interview where she is reflecting on her past life is a secondary source, not a primary, because it's not recording events as they happen, but reflecting on events in the past.
She's a significant, interesting, and unusual person because you're not going to find a lot of women of color with at-risk-inner-city-youth backgrounds who grew up to become nuclear chemists who were a Navy Nuke and are a notable scientist at Oak Ridge and worked on a team that discovered an element and is in Nuclear Security and runs two isotope production lines and does notable research on plutonium, neptunium, californium and does notable research on nuclear medicine. That's interesting and unique! It's certainly not dime a dozen. A person can be significant, interesting, and unusual because of the work they do IMO.
I absolutely don't think even for a second that you or any other editor here has voted delete because of any kind of feelings against scientists, women, people of color, etc. "Especially for women of color" means recognizing that we are going to find fewer RSes about them, even if they are notable; I didn't mean to imply there is a special rule, but rather a special sensitivity. I do think WP should be sensitive to systemic bias in its policies. (That's not to say that delete voters are biased; of course not.)
If she is notable in her field of study (which I think some editors are denying), and her field is nuclear chemical engineering, then a notable nuclear chemical engineer is notable enough for Wikipedia IMO. It's definitely not the end of the world if WP doesn't retain an article on her; and reasonable people can disagree about her notability. ^Leviv_ich 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think your interpretations of the guideline are too specific to think this was what was meant. Here's how so.

There is Wikipedia:Notability (people), commonly known as WP:BIO. It is certainly applicable here, regardless of whether there are other applicable guidelines (which may, however, override this one).
Alongside it, there are also special cases for specific kinds of personalities. The one that interests us is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Academics, which I will refer to as WP:BIO/A. The aforementioned quote of Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. is the entire content of that section. BIO/A deals with a special kind of personalities.
Finally, BIO/A is only an excerpt of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (WP:NPROF), which is shown by the {{main}} template at the top of the former. (And you would indeed generally consider a guideline on academics a specific sub-guideline from a guideline on people.)

Now, given all of the above, I tend to think that NPROF is a sub-guideline of BIO, with an excerpt or maybe an incomplete summary of NPROF being inserted into BIO as BIO/A. As such, it seems that it is against the intended effect to separate BIO/A from NPROF. Again, I agree that this will only benefit from further clarification. But for now, I want to specify it was intended that either a person is acceptable for both or neither. Choosing only one (BIO/A or NPROF; BIO in general is applicable anyway) genuinely seems like cherry-picking to me.

As for "scholarly research" vs. "applied research": I don't quite understand this (I am a foreign speaker, after all), but it seems to me that this is a wrong antithesis. A proper antithesis would be fundamental/basic research vs. applied research. My standard reference dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines "scholarly" as "of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons." It does not seem to me that this excludes applied research. Wikidictionary defines "scholarly" as "of or relating to scholars or scholarship" and it defines "scholar" as "1. A student; one who studies at school or college, typically having a scholarship. 2. A specialist in a particular branch of knowledge. 3. A learned person; a bookman." Again, I don't see why applied research does not qualify as scholarly.

Failing to have notability under NPROF but succeeding in doing so under BIO (minus BIO/A) would be fine, that would warrant us the required notability. But nobody made such a case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but whenever anyone mentioned BIO, they were only talking about lowering the entrance bar but never fixated on how it still was there, how secondary sources were still needed, etc.
As for this and that: of what you have listed, I think what could be potentially notable is her research on those superheavy elements and nuclear medicine. Until you mentioned this (I see this is also in the article now; is this a recent addition or did I previously overlook it?), I thought she was some kind of a, I don't know... engineer? A person who does not do research into anything and just does what others had invented before. If she does her own research, that would be great to mention in a greater detail. Maybe that would actually help truly establish her notability. It seems to me that if anybody outside of Oak Ridge referred to her for this work in some manner, that actually might be enough to warrant inclusion.
I don't like the idea that she is notable for discovery of element 117 because, as I mentioned before, she did not discover it. I will remove that from that infobox. She helped do a prep work, not the discovery itself; that work is not something unheard of, or at least it is not presented as such. To discover an element, you must a) synthesize it, and b) unquestionably identify it as a new element. It was those people who did that who are the discoverers. She wasn't involved in either. The rest, for purposes of Wikipedia, are involved tangentially at best, unless a special case could be made for that person specifically (I mentioned Hamilton in my original message. The moment when I did start to consider him closely was when I saw Oganessian, the lead researcher in Dubna, where the synthesis commenced, name him "the father of 117"). Nobody made such a case for Phelps.
To establish notability, regardless of what exactly will be the source of the said notability, we must have the source verified by these secondary sources. While I am doubtful on whether this source at all counts as secondary (it still comes from ORNL), it doesn't matter because it does not provide an analysis. It barely lists what she had done. Here's a quote: This conscientiousness and meticulous nature are necessary for the type of sensitive work Phelps performs as project manager of ORNL’s nickel-63 and selenium-75 industrial use isotope programs. She is also a researcher in the Medical, Industrial and Research Isotopes Group (MIRIG), where she works on the separation and analysis of elements such as europium, samarium, actinium and lanthanum. // Phelps also has experience with several large, notable research projects. She has collaborated with researchers at Argonne National Laboratory’s Californium Rare Isotope Breeder Upgrade (CARIBU) to electroplate platinum and stainless-steel plates with californium-252 to analyze nuclear fission fragments. She has also contributed work on plutonium and neptunium for NASA’s plutonium-238 project. If there were an analysis of any of these things, we'd probably have something to talk about (I'm not entirely sure, because I'm uneasy without the exact intent of the quote from the rule that you've mentioned, but it would be something and I'd look into it. If it also had come from Berkeley instead, that would've been perfect and certainly enough for inclusion).
I will restrain myself from comments on systemic bias because I lack the knowledge to what extent this is a thing, and on whether we should at all try to correct the existing biases, and if so, to what extent. I tend to think that discrimination in the United States is low when it comes to the inner society of the intellectual people, in our case, high-level scientists, and therefore this is probably not too much of a problem in our case. But I may not know the whole story. I also tend to think that if the society is unfair, then Wikipedia, a mirror of that society, will also be unfair in its coverage as it relies on input from the said society. This is probably easy to say when you're in all of the "privileged" categories, however. Regardless, we are writing an encyclopedia, one that relies on secondary sources. We couldn't do without those, fair or unfair that is. I also hope I've given you the right impression that due to its own inevitable dependence on secondary sources, Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as something to be disappointed not to end up on despite of all your best efforts.
I mentioned that before, but I'll say it once more. As I understand the rules, however many cool things she did is irrelevant. We don't have articles on cool people just because they're cool. What matters is that at least one of those things must bring her notability on its own. Without having really looked into this, I don't think this case is lost. But it has not been done either. If nothing what she had done mattered on its own, then it's a bust unless someone (outside of ORNL) gives her enough coverage to bring her the notability.
I hope the above explains my point explains my point: there must be a particular thing that she did that is cool on its own and is reflected in some secondary sources. I've mentioned my ideas on what those could be.--R8R (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: I was trying to distinguish between research at a university for the purpose of scholarship (publishing), and other kinds of research, e.g., a clinical trial by a contract research organization, or government research like the Manhattan Project. A non-university scientist is likely to publish less than a university scientist, and for this and other reasons, will have a harder time meeting NPROF than a scientist employed by a university. This is even more true when the scientist is working somewhere like the Nuclear Security division at Oak Ridge. We will never have many independent RSes diving into that kind of research; our reliable sources will necessarily be non-independent, e.g., from Oak Ridge. Just like our main source for information about astronauts will be NASA.
Giving presentations at national annual meetings of the American Chemical Society might not meet NPROF but I think it is evidence of her significance.
The Oak Ridge profile is a secondary source because it analyzes her entire career and makes judgments about what her "notable" research contributions are. A non-independent source, even a self-published source, can still be a secondary source.
BIO's "worthy of notice", "remarkable", "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" language can be summed up in one word: "cool". Everything "cool" is significant, interesting, or unusual. An encyclopedia is a book about everything we know that's cool. Oak Ridge National Laboratory considers her to be one of the 80 most significant, interesting and unusual scientists among its staff of like 1,500 or so (and a non-independent source can still be a reliable source–NASA is a reliable source for information about astronauts). Oak Ridge's significant coverage of her is good enough to convince me that she's one of the most significant and unusual nuclear chemists in the world, just like if NASA profiles one of its astronauts, that's good enough to convince me that this is a notable astronaut.
It seems to me all the WP:WHYN concerns are met. We can write a whole article and not just a stub. We know the information about the subject isn't gossip or hoaxes because it comes from Oak Ridge, a reliable source. (The suggestion from some quarters that funding from Congress of the Department of Energy will be influenced by the contents of the biography of Clarice Phelps does not persuade me.) It's based on secondary sources, has no original research, no NPOV problems.
I don't want this to be an encyclopedia that only talks about the 27 most-famous Category:Nuclear chemists in history while having hundreds of thousands of other biographies. It's not lowering our standards to conclude that there's room here for more nuclear chemists, even if they come from outside the university. If the subject of the article meets the significant/interesting/unusual test of BIO and there are no WHYN concerns, I say the article is worthy of being in the encyclopedia. Levivich 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments being made here for deletion due to a claimed lack of "notability" do not apply because Oak Ridge National Laboratory has decided for us that Phelps is notable enough to be a featured scientist. Such declarations by institutional sources like Oak Ridge are the highest level of reliability and verifiability that Wikipedia can hope for. It is, frankly, arrogant and silly to claim that these profiles of Phelps are not good enough sources for our volunteer encyclopedia writing. jps (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the question whether her employer should be considered a reliable source, let me just point out they have featured more than 80 people in the last three years. Usually we wait for this kind of things to be noticed by outside-world secondary sources before we write an article. —Kusma (t·c) 21:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, you imply a possible impeachment of the reliability of Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a source only to switch subjects to a list of their profiles? Fair enough, I suppose! I'll merely opine that having 80 or 800 biographies of scientists in Wikipedia is not problematic at all! It would be a problem if the sourcing was poor, but, then, see point the first. jps (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because Oak Ridge is a government laboratory and not a for-profit corporation, I don't have conflict of interest concerns. It's one of the largest and best-funded nuclear research facilities in the world with some of the world's top supercomputers, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators–a notable scientific research facility. Those 80 scientists they feature are probably among the top laboratory scientists in the world in their respective fields. Unlike athletes or actors or academics, there isn't going to be a lot of media coverage of laboratory scientists, and they don't publish as much as university scholars. Nevertheless, laboratory scientists deserve to be in the encyclopedia like the other folks; we just have a gap in that we don't have an explicit guideline covering them like NPROF or NFOOTY. But we do have the general WP:BIO, and I think she meets it. I wish editors would recognize this guideline gap and see that our pillars, policies and guidelines are flexible enough to account for this situation, e.g., GNG says "presumed" not "required", and the rest are similarly written. ^Leviv_ich 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is news to me that governments and government-related entities do not have conflicts of interest. —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A cynic would dismiss all sources as having a conflict of interest. I guess closing down Wikipedia is another option. Seriously, if you have beef with Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a source have out with it and make your case rather than dancing around the issue. jps (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, suggesting that Oak Ridge has a conflict of interest vis-a-vis one of its nuclear chemists is like saying NASA has a conflict of interest vis-a-vis an astronaut. Neither agency is selling anything, nor has a profit motive to lie or exaggerate. It's not like a startup think tank trying to establish its credibility. Look at articles about young astronauts Kayla Barron, Zena Cardman, Raja Chari; they're all sourced like Clarice Phelps: mostly based on a NASA-published profile, with a smattering of press and primary sources to fill out the bio. For fields like astronauts, nuclear scientists, deep-sea explorers, brain surgeons... you won't find independent coverage in RSes. (And that's why WP:BIO specifically says a scientist might be notable even without secondary sources.) ^Leviv_ich 16:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're drifting way off what matters. We need independent sources and ORNL is not independent of her. But, to address your analogy with NASA, even government departments etc have to compete for budgetary hand-outs: they have to sell themselves, whether they are profit-making or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not suggesting that Congress's budget for the Department of Energy is going to be affected based on what ORNL says in the bio of Clarice Phelps? ORNL undoubtedly has many of the world's top scientists; there is no reason why they would make false statements about one of them. They don't have anything to prove or anyone to impress; they already have the $1.5 billion budget; they're already one of the largest, most prestigious nuclear laboratories in the world. It's like suggesting that NASA is publishing profiles of their astronauts just to get more money from Congress. Nonsense, wouldn't you agree? They're doing it because they're astronauts and they're notable and interesting. Same with nuclear scientists. For the same reason I think this article is a keep, I don't think we should delete those astronauts bios, either, even though they also don't have significant independent coverage. Those astronauts also fail GNG and NPROF, but I'm guided by WP:BIO's statement about lack of secondary sources for scientists. I don't see that as way off topic at all; rather, exactly on topic. ^Leviv_ich 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what astronauts have to do with this - WP:OSE etc, at best. But I give up trying to explain to you, sorry. I've better things to do because I don't think you're going to understand, or perhaps want to understand. Maybe it's something to do with the systemic bias issue but we are not a social engineering project and if you want to go down that road you'll have to get consensus to amend WP:N and various other things in a much more central forum that this. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, I knew someone would bring up OSE just like I knew someone would bring up government budgets as a source of conflict of interest. My point isn't that OSE, it's that in certain highly-specialized, obviously-notable fields, like space exploration and the splitting of atoms, there are so few sources that a self-published source (from NASA or ORNL) is acceptable, and our notability guidelines reflect that, as do our articles. I'm specifically pointing to language in WP:BIO that permits this, and in all your posts, you have not addressed that specific language. (Not that you have to, but I hope the closer considers it.) ^Leviv_ich 17:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up budgets first here, and you invited the OSE comment. And you forget that what you say applies to scientists actually applies just as much to, say, historians. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could apply to a historian, but not "just as much", because historians publish (and thus have NAUTHOR and NPROF to rely on); laboratory scientists don't. Laboratory scientist is more like astronaut than historian. ^Leviv_ich 17:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funding is determined by good PR (and politics). As for publishing - scientists at national labs publish quite a bit (as long as they aren't in very deeply classified stuff). Lab technicians (even with a program manager title) - not so much. Rifle through Category:Oak Ridge National Laboratory people - we have a bunch (55) - and most of them pass GNG and/or NPROF. Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As long as they aren't in very deeply classified stuff"? The article says: "At Oak Ridge, Phelps works in the Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology Division..." and she was formerly in the Navy Nuclear Power Program; primary sources not used in the article state she has security clearance. Now what kind of independent secondary sources are we gonna find talking about her work in the Nuclear Security division with plutonium, neptunium, californium, nickel, selenium, etc. isotopes? ^Leviv_ich 22:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the reasons outlined above by E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz. Not convinced she meets GNG, lack of independent, secondary sources etc. I note the points about under-representation in science but Wikipedia doesn't exist to over-correct for this. Peaky76 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to pass WP:Prof unless somebody can find citations on GS to her published work. I can find none. The other sources trace to public relations material issued by the subject's employer and are not independent. WP:GNG is not passed. Policy is clear-cut. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I wish that people who engage in external canvassing would realize the harm they do to the reputation of the person on whose behalf they canvass. Even if a BLP is kept for good cause, people are always going to have reason to say that it was kept only because of the canvassing, and that reflects poorly on the subject of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability is pat of a team that discovered an element. She was not a substantial part of the team, but a technician. It's not unusual to include long-term technicians as coauthors of a paper on a major project, to show appreciation, but that does not make them scientists or researchers in the usual sense of the word. Therefore, publicity she had is not just PR, but unjustified PR as far as the science is concerned. And yes, budget for US govt science is very much affected by political reasons, and the agencies make sure that there's as much PR about it as they can manage. Some of it is based on calling people by titles or positions or making ambiguous statements that might to the uninformed imply importance. (But even for scientists or executives in the usual sense, it's wise to beware of "involved with" -- I routinely remove such statements from all sort of bios. It's uniformly PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. from a very simplistic materials point of view I find it strange that "canvas" has been mentioned but that "notpaper" hasn't. I would like to see en.wp be more than recycled stories from People, the Daily Beast, and Gamasutra. While I'm not necessarily a big fan of nuclear science, it's clear that Oak Ridge & Argonne are not to be sneezed at. onrl.gov is cited on 676 pages at en.wp at the moment, well behind the dead site AllGame, or Kotaku or Gamespot (11,257 pages). I'm not convinced that is a good thing at all. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand your argument correctly? It seems to be "keep, is connected to ORNL. Other articles cite Gamespot". How is Gamespot relevant to the subject? —Kusma (t·c) 22:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you do not, but that is not your fault because I did not dot all the eyes and cross all the teas. Wikipedia as it currently exists is (in terms of a good bit of its volume, cf. [50]) a dumping ground of recycled pop-culture & political trivia. The weird world of AfD has made WP:N much harder to reach for people who do science than it is for singers, video game avatars, could-have-been footballers, pornstars, etc. Should en.wp be trying to mold young minds with the twisted visions of notability that have created such double standards for religious gameboys, etc.? Consensus, as you know, can change. Just doing my part to help that along. Thanks for asking. :D SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is not a social engineering project. That is exactly what people such as the canvassers mentioned above are trying to achieve and it is why an attempt was made last year to lower the notability criteria for "marginal" groups (at the Pump, IIRC). That attempt failed then and doing it by the back door, through individual AfDs, isn't likely to work when the overwhelming consensus has so recently been not to accept it. The situation for individuals will most likely change over time as the "real world" pays more attention to such people but it is not our place to create or force the situation. Women, for example, are achieving much greater recognition in the real world than once they were and it will filter through to here as the sources become available. We have similar issues with many articles that rely on "echo chamber" websites, eg: articles about many Dalit people are being promoted by a project in part funded by the WMF but rely mostly on websites set up for the purposes and on interviews with the article subject themselves. If people want to right great wrongs, they need to find some other outlet, sorry. Ms Phelps is quite probably cringing if she knows of all this attention being foisted on her - it isn't necessarily edifying to have ones role in life and society analysed in this way when, quite possibly, someone just wants to get on with it. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting that master wikigame players (i.e. sysops) are getting so involved in trying to delete this page. I very nearly didn't get involved because I did not want to have to associate Ms. Phelps with the junk that populates much of Wikipedia, so your point about "unwanted attention" is a good one. I decided, however, that Ms. Phelps had nothing to be ashamed of, only Wikipedia did. I noticed, in quietly looking through the contrib history of the person that first ~~nominated~~ proposed this page for deletion, that they made an "important" contribution to the page Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer. Would you say it would also be embarrassing to "Stone Blade Entertainment" to suggest that that page be AfD'd as first-world advertising trivia? I see that metacritic (one of two sources for the article) is owned by CBS... so is part of the Redstone family of entertainment products (the other source is boardgamegeek.com).

Just next to the summum of the WMF hierarchy we find a former bigshot at jeux-video.fr (Christophe Henner) who is currently COO of the Blade group (unrelated, except in name, to the game mentioned above). I also don't wish to suggest that those arguing for deletion are all playing a game, I fully recognize that the tradition of wikipedia being a gaming-culture and LCD-culture repository has been firmly established; and that it is entirely possible that within the AfD community echo-chamber, stricter and nobler rules have been developed for truly encyclopedic subjects like nuclear science, YWCA community awards, etc. I will not continue to reply to all those who wish to dispute my right to hold the opinion that this article could be kept to profit, but I would like to ask that I be allowed not to change that opinion or be accused of being some sort of pie-eyed idealist wanting to right great wrongs. I say, "play on!" expressing and justifying (when asked) an opinion about AfD culture is not a foul. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this AfD has been conducted in an abysmally uncivil way. Those of us that take part in WomenInRed or the diversity projects that WM-LGBT supports, are not meatpuppets, canvassers, or vandals that must be banned. The bad faith systemic attacks against anyone that dares to question the hardline and wikilawyering interpretation of the PROF notability guideline, rather than taking on board that there may be a rationale under GNG, do no credit to Wikipedia. Those of you attacking and defaming others should sit back and reflect on whether you are part of the well documented and researched problem that Wikipedia has, in failing to make minority groups feel welcome and not driven away through being hassled and hounded, when all they are attempting to do is improve articles. --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:NPA please. And you are referring the IP address that PRODed this article - not the nominator of the AfD. I will note there may a few different people behind an IP at a research university - in particular when discussing contributions 3 years apart (the video game contrib being in 2016). What is missing is the arguement above is why a lab technician without significant independent coverage passes any notability guideline.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either provide a current reliable source that asserts that Phelps works as a "lab technician" or strike it. This appears a deliberate and repeated attempt to demean and diminish her position and experience by using a job title a decade old. You may as well be calling her a schoolgirl. --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to her position when 117 was discovered (in which she, as thousands others, played a minor supporting role) - Nuclear Operations Technician. WomenInRed should take a long hard look how this bio with material misrepresentations was created and promoted. We had "is the first African-American woman to identify an element." in our article as well as a PhD (while Phelps holds a b.sc).Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, everyone can see what you were doing. By constantly deriding her as a lab technician with no qualification as to when or where that was her title, rather than using her current job title, you are deliberately degrading her. Leave it out, make accurate statements and use her current job title if you must use one. This is a living person as our subject. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is her current job title? Feel free to add it to the article, although it is really unlikely to make any difference to her notability unless she now holds a named professorship etc. You're pushing an agenda, Fæ, and have been doing for years. Since you're already on the radar for what prima facie appear to be somewhat dodgy practices related to such pushing, it might be wise to step back a little. That's your choice, of course, although I do think that if you're going to continue pursuing this sort of thing then you should pay closer attention to the claims made by the article creator, several of which were seriously inaccurate here. And it is not just here; for example, at the newly-created Nola Hylton as recently as two days ago, that person said At the time, she was one of few black women physicists with a PhD.^[1] The claim is not in the source. It's sloppy and it reeks of agenda-based editing, which is also apparent from other things I'm not allowed to detail. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Physicists – AAWIP". Retrieved 2019-02-07.

Per the article and the sources cited there, her titles are researcher and project manager. Levivich 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Ad hominem attacks against other contributors in a vote or discussion are completely unacceptable.

Please supply diffs for your allegations and explain exactly who is guilty of what.

With regard to You're pushing an agenda, Fæ, and have been doing for years, this seems hard to read as anything other than a personal attack deriding my well known volunteer work with the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, making a false and disparaging allegation of having a Gay agenda, a clear form of minority discrimination and harassment. You can either apologize for this rubbish, or go ahead and attempt to frame your words as a somehow legitimate complaint about me, and provide verifiable evidence fora your allegations of years of my agenda pushing at ANI or as an Arbcom case, however expect your previous pattern of personal attacks to be examined in detail, and your related history of running a nasty targeted campaign of attack and harassment would be resurrected which resulted in an Editing Restriction from interacting with or even mentioning a woman/feminist contributor, no matter how tedious that is for everyone else. If Wikipedia ever needed to find examples of why women do not feel welcome contributing here, you qualify for that honour and it seems to me that extending your ban to all discussions about BLPs, would immediately benefit the encyclopedia.

Put up or shut up. --Fæ (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point that scientists get less coverage than they deserve, skewing our coverage so we have third-rate footballers but only first-rate scientists here. The case at hand, however, is a scientist/technician with no published papers who is not related enough to her main claim of fame to warrant a mention in that article. —Kusma (t·c) 09:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Government organisations provide profiles of employees for promotional/outreach reasons on their websites and in internal publications. Only some of these will have clear or marginal notability; in the latter case WP:IAR and/or WP:NPOINTS might apply, but the profiles themselves do not provide or necessarily even contribute to notability. Here's examples of profiles from the US Department of Energy, US military, US Army, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Department of the Interior. I'd give more weight to IAR if her article was key to interlinking unconnected articles as supporting pillar 1 (heretical version: "Wikipedia is a hyperlinked encyclopedia"), but until coverage improves this is likely to end up an orphan or close enough if she is given due weight as it's clear now that she should not appear at tennessine. With current sourcing, the only articles which provide — or are likely to provide — incoming links to her article are lists (section or full article), and she really shouldn't appear in any which state that members listed are notable. (One of these days there is going to be someone whose article's AFD is going to achieve clear sigcov.) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG et al. Also, Notability is not inherited. Also, Fæ, talking about Wikipedia on Twitter? About an AfD? Appears you've outed yourself? Whatever. Looks like canvassing to me. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, Hydronium Hydroxide, and others. The article subject does not meet either GNG or NPROF, as shown above, due to the dearth of independent reliable sources about her. A feature article by her employer is a good source but it isn't independent and so does not establish notability. It appears that some are arguing to keep the article based on IAR because the article subject is a woman POC but I do not think this particular argument is justified in this particular case. If the article subject had been an integral part of the process of discovering Tennessine (ie mentioned in the paper announcing the discovery, for example), then I would agree with IAR. But that's not the case: the article subject's contribution was as part of a team that synthesized an element used by the team that actually discovered the element. It's very possible that the brouhaha surrounding this AfD will result in independent reliable sources writing about the article subject; at that time, the article could be recreated based on those sources in addition to the ones currently in the article. But right now the article subject just doesn't meet GNG and I'm not seeing a strong justification for IAR. Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG et al - No evidence of notability, Fails NPROF as well as GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the last bit of my comment as her tweet states "The problem is not that she’s not notable, or that @Wikipedia editors are a bunch of sexist trolls waiting to jump on the bio of an impressive scientist" (emphasis mine) - I missed the "not" so my sincere apologies for this. –Davey2010^Talk 10:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of significant independent coverage. Getting an award from the local YWCA does not help her meet any notability criteria. As a for notability as a scientist, my search in Google Scholar found a grand total of 1 citation of papers she has authored or co-authored. Just because she works for the government doesn't mean she can't publish papers (and she has), the only restriction is if her work is classified. Her participation in the discovery of element 117 appears to have been very minor. Her name does not appear in the Oak Ridge publication "The Discovery of Element 117". Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117". Sounds like a very minor role in an undertaking involving a large number of people. I don't see convincing evidence that she is notable as a scientist or meets WP:GNG. I agree with the others who cited WP:TOOSOON as an issue. Papaursa (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Appasamy[edit]

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

I did a WP:BEFORE, to the best of my extents but did not find anything worthwhile. Nothing non-trivial over JSTOR.

I will analyse the references and leave it to the discretion of the !voters.

Ref 1--.A list of publications of her, on WorldCat. Hardly any indicator of notability.
Ref 2--She was merely a lecturer at Dept. Of Fine Arts of Delhi University. Fails WP:NPROF.
Ref 3 and Ref 4--Both the sources drops her name, (in the most trivial of all fashions) among a list of artists who founded Delhi Shilpi Chakra. Nothing else.
Ref 5 and 9--An essay about her in an irregularly published journal; which is hardly any housed and where she had previously authored. I though note that it is published by the National; Academy of Arts.
Ref 6--Lists essays published by her. We need stuff about her; not by her.
Ref 7--She managed the donation of a collection of indigenous art-works to a museum (which is hardly any indicator of notability) from a foundation, established by her. I note that the transfer did not include her own works; which would have satisfied NARTIST (4).
Ref 8--Fails criterion of intellectual independency and even then, covers the works of an establishment in her memory. PR stuff.
Ref 10--Fails RS.
Ref 11 and 12--Received fellowships, which are not highly selective (as evident from the volumes of people who have received them).
Ref 13, 14 & 15 -- Books written by her; hardly imparts notability. We need stuff about her.
Ref 16--Non-available.
Ref 17--The sole substantial stuff which is a review of one of her works.

In light of the above, I don't see any claim to passing WP:NARTIST and/or WP:GNG. We can merge the info in a paragraph or so, to List of Indian women artists. ∯WBG^converse 07:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 4 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. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Reza[edit]

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

Not-notable creative personality. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that the current source 5, "semiconductor radiation detectors", is not written by the same Salim Reza. Fram (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. samee converse 10:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So this Salim Reza, a self proclaimed poet and author from West Bengal, claims to be this Salim Reza, a nuclear scientist from Sweden. Self-promotion with misinformation and deceit. This should have been nominated under WP:G11. AhmadLX (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Eekmal Ahmad[edit]

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

Mohd lost the one polticial race he was in. The coverage focuses primary on this, and is not enough to show he is notable. Basically he got as much coverage as any other candididate that lost, and we do not make articles on all unelected candidates. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office, but this makes no strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons and cites nowhere near enough quality sourcing to suggest that his candidacy could possibly be considered a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:27, 9 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. czar 03:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squib (sketched concept or visual solution)[edit]

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

5-line article about a seldom-used slang term. Article hasn't been edited since May 2013 and has 3 "issues," including not having any sources. Article also fails WP:NAD (specifically WP:NEO), as the word "squib" is rarely searched more than 30 times a month (or once a day), rarely referring to the definition outlined in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor UrbanDictionary, even if this is a real term. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references, no source citations. Vorbee (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Never heard of this term, and sources are not found to establish notability. Appears to be a neologism effort.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:08, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicent González[edit]

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

This article has no significant third party reliable sources. The article failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manhunt International; as per WP:ATD-R, a functional search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Duque[edit]

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

This article has no significant third party reliable sources. The article failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mister Global; a functional search term, per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 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. czar 03:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand at major male beauty pageants[edit]

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

The article along with the other related articles specified below have no significant third party reliable sources to justify the claim that the following pageants are "major beauty pageants" namely: Manhunt International, Mister World, Mister International, Mister Global, Mister Supranational. Also, the articles failed to meet WP:GNG and clearly original research and synthesis. This is a bundled or consolidated nomination for deletion to include:

--03:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Richie Campbell (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the male beauty pageant articles listed here. All spam. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion debate may be informative as it started with many of the same complaints. See Category:Male beauty pageants, I am concerned about WP:NOTSTATS. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment Article creator has clearly edited before under another username(s). Perhaps Sky Groove, a blocked editor who seems to share similar interest in beauty pageants/contestants. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment This nomination doesn't need to be repeated twenty+ times and load up the daily log. Please use only one of the noms to consolidate discussion and redirect the others to that one nom. Nate • (chatter) 17:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: I agree with you. Can you or anyone please help to consolidate the noms and redirect to one nom?-Richie Campbell (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie Campbell: Option 1: If you want to consolidate them into one, then leave one open (probably this one, since there is discussion), and for the others, change the link in every AfD page template for the other nominated articles to point to this nomination page, then request speedy delete A7/G6 for each of the other AfD nomination pages. However, that may end up as a WP:TRAINWRECK if people think that there is different value in the different bundled nominations. Option 2: if you want to leave the individual nominations open, go into each nomination page and remove the long list of links to other nominations. I think the second option makes more sense, since it avoids WP:TRAINWRECK, but either way is kind of a mess, so it's up to you. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have executed option 1. Thank for your help, Bakazaka---Richie Campbell (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for sorting it out despite my A7/G7 typo. Bakazaka (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems as if "major" is arbitrarily defined by one source? Anyways, the sourcing on this is terrible, and I don't think we have articles like "England at major (individual) tennis tournaments" since it's an arbitrary breakout of a list unsupported by sources - possibly WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As above, the five are arbitrary, therefore it does not pass WP:NOTSTATS. Mister Supranational does not yet have a Wikipedia page, therefore a separate list saying how many Canadians have not won it is not yet needed. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete all This is not the Olympics, it's too granular for individual country articles which do not have sources for the overall topic. Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - for now. Until such time the subject will be better sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 07:24, 8 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Hickey[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Likely fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are primary and doesn't appear to pass GNG, most likely a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems far more promotional than encyclopedic. Most of the coverage is from him giving talks where he (or his company) has supplied the biographic information. I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor do I see that any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Semetko[edit]

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

There is borderline notability, but from my POV he fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:OR. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "University of Philosophical Research" may be fishy (it's at https://www.uprs.edu , and note how freely available the "edu" TLD has been), but Semetko is a respected street photographer. Google Books suggests that he's mentioned, perhaps discussed, in a fair number of books; but at least for me, here, the texts aren't available so I can't peek inside and see what's said. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfies WP:GNG in that he has had a book of his work published by a major publisher (teNeues); has exhibited in various countries; and a quick search shows up enough independent reliable sources that have articles that address him directly and in detail: Vice, The Indian Express and Hindustan Times, which I have now added to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work on the article by Lopifalko makes it more obvious that Semetko merits an article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions (as Northamerica1000 has requested "a more thorough discussion"). ImmortalWizard, you write above: '''Delete''' per [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:OR]]. First, which editor has a conflict of interest, and how has this conflict of interest damaged the article in its current state? Secondly, where is the "original research" in the article in its current state? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you. I was referring to this version of the article where it had only two accessible (online) sources. One of them referred to this page, which is obviously WP:OR. Now, my knowledge of WP:COI was limited and I concluded that from the statement, "He is known for the strong sense of humor and irony that appear in his candid and spontaneous photos of every day life.", which was biased and not cited, paired up with the use of OR. That being said, I have not looked at the current version and would leave my comment as it is, even if it is somewhat wrong. Good that you brought it up. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a diff between the state the article was in when you wrote your "delete" "!vote" and the state it was in when you wrote your response immediately above is difficult to understand because paragraphs have been shunted up and down, and orders reversed, enough to confuse the comparison utility. Here's the article as it is [in what is for me] now. You, ImmortalWizard, are free to find fault with it (I can easily fault it myself); but I think most people would agree that it has changed considerably, and for the better. Would you agree? (And remember: both Ad Orientem and Northamerica1000 have requested "a more thorough discussion"; let's not disappoint them.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - as I've stated, my past review was based on one of the older revisions. Looking at it's current version, I disregard that. Although there is still OR, it doesn't signify deletion. I simply have no knowledge regarding the subject's specific NG and therefore would not amend any further consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mihaljevic[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources in the article or online. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointe-Noire District[edit]

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

I can find no references that this is an actual district in the Republic of Congo. This source (among several others) lists 6 districts in the Kouilou Region, and Pointe-Noire is not one of them. There is a Department by that name, but no district. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like it's a commune per [51], should we just rename/update it? SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that's the same as Pointe-Noire, SportingFlyer. Not sure, but I think Commune and City are interchangeable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Pointe-Noire became its own department aka district in 2003. The relevant template and other pages need to be adjusted, but this article is accurate. --Lockley (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- hang on, maybe not. Since a reorganization in 2003 Republic of the Congo has 12 departments. Ten of those departments are broken up into districts. The other two departments, the cities Brazzaville and Pointe-Noire, are not subdivided into districts. This article has the District of Pointe-Noire belonging to the Kouilou Region, which was correct before 2003 and certainly wrong today, so perhaps it is cleanest to delete it. --Lockley (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. I have no objection to an article about such a district, even if it is in historical terms about an abolished district. However in the absence of sources we may be misleading people, so this must be deleted unless sources can be found.--Pontificalibus 09:25, 7 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 CPU socket#List of CPU sockets and slots. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socket 615[edit]

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

This exists, but seems to have received very little attention. Not everything computer-related is notable enough to be included as a separate page here. Fram (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CPU socket#List of CPU sockets and slots. Even if the subject is technically notable, WP:NOPAGE suggests avoiding permastub status by locating the information in the context of a larger article. Most of the information in the article already exists at the suggested target, and it is unlikely that more significant coverage will appear to support an article that is anything more than a permastub prose description of the technical specifications. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 4 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. If someone wants to start a merge discussion on that talk page, they can, but I don't think relisting this a second time will accomplish much, but there's only one person arguing a straight delete here, so the odds of this being deleted are very slim. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Freedom March[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy-delete-tagged as "The article described a possible future event for the time (in 2009), which never took place - which clearly violates WP:CBALL and WP:NOTNEWS", but many pages link to it, and the process of planning and organizing the march may be notable, although the march did not in the end happen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That an event was cancelled does not make it non-notable, especially as it was called off so close to it starting. What matter is: was there significant coverage such as would indicate notability of this cancelled event? I find there just about was: 1 2 3. Particularly the cancellation of the event itself was an event so this isn't something that didn't happen. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be altered to make it clear that it did not happen, and remove assumptions about the event, such as: "was a non-violent political march", which indicates both that it happened and that when it happened it was non-violent. We know the first didn't happen, and we can't make statements saying that it was peaceful without a special alternate-reality WP:CRYSTALBALL. With that said, the march, it's planning and its cancelation are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. For instance, this article about it's cancellation^[52] -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that HuffPost blog post is NOT a WP:RS. The problem here is neither the plan to hold a march or the cancellation of the plan was widely covered by SECONDARY WP:RS. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete for lack of WP:RS, SECONDARY sources. The HuffPost blog post User:NoCOBOL suggest, is, like the Stephen Walt op ed FOARP suggest not WP:SIGCOV. Nothing now on the page seems to be reliable, SECONDARY coverage either. The Al Jazeera article FOARP links to has a sentence on this March. The book FOARP links to is published by [[Verso Press], not by an academic or a mainstream publishing house.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there's this report from the BBC. Not sure what the nature of this source is. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in addition to the above the mentioned article is also a clear case of WP:SOAP, trying to promote an event, which in fact never took place and has no notability whatsover. For instance, multiple actual events are not even covered to date, such as 2019 South Syria demonstrations, so the non-existent Gaza Freedom March should be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 07:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a WP:WAX argument? WP:SOAP isn't, primarily, a delete rationale but a page-quality issue. Events that were cancelled may still be notable, particularly if their cancellation was widely reported. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to make an article on some Gaza demonstration, which has never taken place, is WP:SOAP. We have enough coverage on Gaza demnstrations in various articles - such as Blockade of the Gaza Strip.GreyShark (dibra) 20:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my vote.GreyShark (dibra) 21:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:EVENT planned to happen 9 years ago does not have to have actually taken place. It does, however, have to have WP:INDEPTH sourcing, which a BBC news bulletin: Egypt bans a protest march into Gaza] is not. At present, the article is sourced to announcements from various organizations about who intended to attend. A protest rally that never happened would need a WP:HEYMANN of WP:RS text and sourcing meeting WP:EVENTCRITERIA, including WP:EFFECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~2009 in the Palestinian territories#Events~~.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010 - the march never got off of the ground and it isn't clear there was any lasting effect - little need for a standalone article based on 2009 news reports and statements. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010; better target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hector (DJ)[edit]

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

Non-notable. PabloMartinez (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC: ~~A bio at Resident Advisor ([53]),~~ profile pieces from Mixmag ([54]) and Vice ([55]) as well as a few reviews of his work ([56], [57]) and this interview. That's enough to meet the criteria for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few more sources. They're admittedly not the best, but here they are: [58], [59], [60], [61]. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I seldom weigh in on non-American subjects because of my lack of familiarity with possible foreign language sources that might prove notability. But I will state that contrary to this above Keep vote, Resident Advisor--which accounts for a full one half of the 6 sources provided in the keep argument--is not reliable. It is a membership service for creating your own content for promotional purposes. See: https://www.residentadvisor.net/about/contribute . Another source, EggLondon, is a venue's website, and all content therein is in the service of promotion. That leaves only two reliable sources, one of which, Mix Magazine, openly solicits for content ("Have a story for our magazine or website?") See: https://mixmag.net/page/contact-mixmag. IMO the Vice article is the only one that passes the notability muster, and even that one is a fairly run-of-the-mill profile that is mostly the artist talking about himself. But in fairness (and hence my "weak" vote) my sense is if other notable content is out there it will possibly be found in Spanish language sources, despite the fact that much of his claimed notability has been achieved in the English speaking world. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking through, I can see that ShelbyMarion is right about the Resident Advisor biography being unreliable (see here) so I have struck that from my !vote above. However, RA is deemed a reliable source by WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for their reviews. Mixmag also can be considered reliable - it's well established as a dance/electronic music magazine, and had a circulation of 70000 copies per month at the height of its popularity. The profile piece in question was written by Dave Turner, who is their 'Digital News Editor', so I don't think there is any reason to discount that as a source. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I considered WK, but while some of the sources could be filtered out for being too close to a pure interview, I think there is sufficient acceptable coverage to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the guy is actually a pretty well-known DJ globally. As usual, dance DJs and producers suffer on Wikipedia due to the lack of online sources available – I can't find anything online other than what's already been mentioned above. But it's likely Hector has had further pieces written about him in print editions of Mixmag, DJ Mag, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No workable outcome here, especially as the merge target is a redirect. No consensus to delete. If you want to rename or merge, it can be done outside of AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XL (programming language)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT at a first glance, the only secondary source I could find was from The Register^[1] AtlasDuane (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Phil Manchester (16 Jan 2008). "Dip into concept programming". theregister.co.uk. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename as concept programming (currently a redirect to here). Judging it as a product is completely the wrong approach. Instead XL is just a proof implementation for a new paradigm in programming, that of concept programming. [62][63][64] That's still obscure, but it's also (if anyone can be encouraged to do the legwork on the article) encyclopedic. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Andy Dingley. That's about right to me. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 14:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept programming closed as merge to XL last March czar 03:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USC Davis School of Gerontology. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USC Longevity Institute[edit]

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

Entirely self-referenced. Not independently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USC Davis School of Gerontology. This research group is not independently notable. "Coverage" is coming from the university's press releases and announcements, so fails WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 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 God complex. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah complex[edit]

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

Appears to be a duplicate of God Complex under a different name. AtlasDuane (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge This is not a duplicate of God complex (note the small 'c': God Complex is a different article). There's a lot of hits in Google Scholar and some point to this being a specific conceptualisation in Jungian psychoanalysis of the broader idea of a God complex. That said, both this and God complex are stubs, so probably better to merge this article into God complex (make it a subsection there), until such time as more content is added. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I take it you meant God complex and "God compelx" was just a mis-spelling. I see the article on God complex was nominated for deletion twice - once in 2005, once in 2009 - but both times, the result of the discussion was keep. Vorbee (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was a typo. Have fixed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and fails verification. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've done a bit of work on the article and added two references. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having read ref#2 at [65] I'm not impressed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge yes, it is a similar topic under a related name. This one is less commonly known--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to God complex. The only arguable difference between the two articles lies in the uncited second paragraph. Those that think this is a distinct topic need to cite that stuff. In the meantime merge what is cited and lose the rest with a redirect. SpinningSpark 04:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarena Straus[edit]

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

One 2006 book, in only a few dozen libraries, and nothing else. There are probably some reviews, but this still won't be enough DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a 1200 word profile in 2006: Salerno, Heather (July 11, 2006). "She throws...". The Journal News. p. D1. But that's about it. Even book reviews were few and trivial, with newspaper database search finding two "reviews" that are one line each. The book has been mentioned and quoted here and there, but even so you'd be hard-pressed to justify even the book's notability, much less this subject. Her later career seems mostly to be as a corporate attorney for pharma companies, and someone with the same name gets mentioned in the context of an art-collecting family, but only in passing. So, probably not notable in Wikipedia terms. Open to reconsidering if someone else finds significant coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same profile article in what I take to be her local paper (She throws, Salerno, Heather. The Journal News; White Plains, N.Y. [White Plains, N.Y]11 July 2006: D.1.) But, like Bakazaka and DGG, I'm just not seeing notability here. Please ping me to reconsider if anyone finds sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qwanell Mosley[edit]

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

Notabilty does not seem strong. Do we delete, or merge into band article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stevantoni[edit]

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

I can't see what this filmmaker is notable for. The two outlined sources are also not reliable and independent of the character. I thought to bring it for community discussion than a straight speedy deletion tag Loved150 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than a couple of short films, only significant work is one film only recently released at film festivals. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources not found. Even assuming the awards are for the subject and not his film, they are not significant enough to merit passing WP:ANYBIO#1. Does not pass any criteria in WP:FILMMAKER either. So, not much to work with here. The generous move would be to redirect to the identically sourced Desert Shores (film) article, but someone is almost certain to notice soon that the film isn't really notable either. Let's call this one WP:TOOSOON and delete without prejudice against future recreation if subject becomes notable in Wikipedia terms. Bakazaka (talk) 05:29, 4 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 Kwame Owusu-Ansah#Filmography. czar 03:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axe of Vengeance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axe of Vengeance, however many editors objected on the basis of WP:TRAINWRECK, so I am nominating the relevant ones individually. SITH (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kwame Owusu-Ansah. The Nigerian film industry is the third-largest n the world (behind the US and India), but nearly all of its films are intended for local distribution in Nigeria and Ghana and receive minimal-to-zero press elsewhere. Did this film receive reviews and coverage in Nigerian newspapers or periodicals? It's hard to say, as there are very few online archives of Nigerian or Ghanaian material. Arguably, there's a claim for WP:NFO 2d retention here, because the film was included in an exhibition/program about the history of Nigerian and Ghanaian film posters and "film shack" culture. That was presented in 2011 as "Movie Mojo: Hand-Painted Posters from Ghana", and in a slightly different form in 2012; the latter version of the exhibition is named after this film. Even for my inclusion standards, that's a pretty thin case, and I can't really bring myself to directly argue for retention absent at least one actual review or analysis in a (probably Nigerian) source. But at the bare minimum (and despite the cleanup issues his article needs), Kwame Owusu-Ansah was a significant actor in Nigerian and Ghanaian film, and a redirect to his article recognizes the title as a plausible search term. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that Kwame Owusu-Ansah is up for deletion too. Mccapra (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: The Kwame Owusu-Ansah was closed as keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I did a Google search of the film and didn't see a review of it in reliable sources. Nigerian and Ghanaian newspapers tend to focus on politics and not entertainment. There are only a few reliable sources dedicated to film reviews. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Opie and Anthony Show. czar 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Opie and Anthony Show Pests[edit]

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

This content should be merged into The Opie and Anthony Show. This “organization” is not notable on its own as a review of the sources indicates any notability is derived from TOAAS. That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete Not an independently notable topic, excessive detail for the encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 02:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you feel it should be merged why not start a merger discussion rather than an AfD? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 22:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Projects[edit]

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

Defunct, apparently short lived, no indications of notability Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:NORG. All sources on page appear primary, and have been claimed by linkrot. Could not find updated versions via googling. Note that it has been tagged as needed additional references since 2007. Few substantive edits have occurred since 2008. Couldn't find any articles, media mentions, or references in general despite trying numerous search booleans (such as "Dutch Grassroots projects Oaxaca", "Dutch Grassroots projects", "Grassroots projects Netherlands") to attempt to get around the fact there are a lot of "grassroots" organizations. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Captain Eek. Barely any third-party sources found. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:46, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altona Gate Shopping Centre[edit]

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

WP:MILL. Mall size is less than 30,000 m2, hardly substantial for an article. Trivial mentions in sources. Ajf773 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have used this centre for years. There is nothing special about it. --Bduke (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha entertaining remark however I'm not sure your use of, or opinion about the special-ness of a mall is relevant to it's legitimate existence on Wikipendia! Cabrils (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was in my own way pointing out that I do I do not think this shopping centre has been noticed in reliable sources to the level that is required. The TV show mentioned below might be recognition, but it is not referenced in the article so should be removed at the end of this AfD discussion if the article is kept and it is still not referenced. --Bduke (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I agree. Cabrils (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per indiscriminate directory entry. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ProQuest lists scores of newspaper articles but not sure how substantial they are. Certainly the current entry needs some references. If the page survives this challenge I will look to adding some references (if that helps). Current entry is certainly not overly promotional. Cabrils (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I searched newspaper archives. Numerous mentions in The Age but they were all trivial: job adverts, liquor licence applications, event listings etc.. No significant coverage.--Pontificalibus 08:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if true that it was in a TV show. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many thousands of shopping centers in the world which are not automatically notable; this does not stand out with substantive RSes. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NBUILD.--Pontificalibus 08:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WP:ROTM. Acnetj (talk) 03:05, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon Award[edit]

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

Article about a literary award, not properly referenced as having any notability. Like other awards, literary awards are not automatically deemed notable just because their own primary source websites about themselves technically verify that they exist -- like any other topic, the notability test is the reception of reliable source media coverage (i.e. in newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) in sources that are independent of its own self-published web presence. But there's no referencing being shown here at all beyond its own website. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, there's a 125-word blurb on the occasion of the first awards in "NEWSNOTES". Chronicle: SF, Fantasy & Horror's Monthly Trade Journal. Vol. 27, no. 10. 2005. pp. 11–16. That's about it for the award itself, as search mostly finds announcements of how to pay the fee and submit work for the award, which is actually a contest, along with passing mentions in author bios like "X, who has won the Aeon Award". It seems to be one of many WP:MILL literary contests, lacking the significant coverage that suggests sufficient notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Bakazaka (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bakazaka Lapablo (talk) 06:48, 4 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derringer Award[edit]

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

Literary award, "referenced" entirely to its own self-published Blogspot blog rather than any evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage about it. As always, the notability test for a literary award is not just the ability to use its own self-published web presence as technical verification that it exists -- the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage in media (books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc.) that is independent of the awards' own organizing committee. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability, i performed a searched on GNEWS but nothing came up. Non-notable award. Lapablo (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little evidence that the award has received much attention from the media, apart from trivial mentions (typically so-and-so won the award), or announcements [66]. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "The Physicists – AAWIP". Retrieved 2019-02-07.

[ther_Dipi-2] Phil Manchester (16 Jan 2008). "Dip into concept programming". theregister.co.uk. Retrieved 28 January 2019.

[1]

[1]