Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 January 11 January >

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 merge to Midnattsol. The keep !votes are generally not based in policy. Notability must be demonstrated via evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, or WP:ANYBIO. No such evidence has been put forward. Notability does not derive from popularity, from comments made by the subject of the article, or from having founded a band that already has its own article. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Elise Espenæs[edit]

Carmen Elise Espenæs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Previous attempt to redirect to the band was reverted. The only sources available online are blogs, ads, and press releases, so this fails WP:MUSICBIO. Bradv🍁 23:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Well, I made the article, I think it's a remarkable artist because she is the leader of a certain band of recognition in their genre, called Midanttsol. Besides her work with Leave s Eyes and her own band Savn --Apega71 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why delete the article? Everyone in Norway loves Carmen Ellise. She deserves to have her own article for her outstanding musical career. In many languages it has its own page. Why not in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chavitico (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC) — Chavitico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge into Midnattsol - Combined these two articles possibly pass WP:NMUSIC, but I'm not all that happy about the individual sourcing on either at the moment, though I feel like that can probably be fixed. Nathan2055talk - contribs 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or even delete) into the band. There is not enough about her specifically in the references. Arguments like "she is loved" are not valid for a deletion discussion. If you vote keep, please come up with something substantial (sources). wikitigresito (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Midnattsol. I was able to add one reference about Carmen Elise specifically, but most coverage is about Midnattsol. If Savn does release another album this year, then there may be more coverage of her, and an individual article may be warranted, but at the moment it seems WP:TOOSOON for that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some material from a podcast interview and in it, the interviewer and Carmen indicated the surprisingly large following the band has in Mexico and parts of South America. She is the founder of the bands, that should be significant in itself. There are a lot of metal sites on the web but it is challenging sifting the blogs from RS, it could take some time. LovelyLillith (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For explain better my argument. Carmen Espanæs is a very complete and respected artist in the metal band of Germany and Norway. She is one of the greatest exponents of the called genre Nordic Folk Metal and has founded two bands, where she is the composer and the singer. Anything else?--Chavitico (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that multiple of the keep votes come from accounts with very few edits. wikitigresito (talk) 00:10, 18 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decred[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Decred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The main disagreement was "Is the Chicago Tribune article a local source?" and I think it was. It's labeled as a "Blue Sky Original" and they all seem to be about Chicago startups https://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ Is there anything better?

@P199, EnPassant, Retimuko, Calton, Smallbones, Hrodvarsson, and Polyamorph: Pinging participants from the 2nd AfD which was closed early because it was nominated by a sockpuppet. Џ 23:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lack of reliable sources, the Forbes article is by a Forbes staff member (not a "contributor"= blogger) so might be considered an RS, except that it only mentions Decred in passing and certainly does not document the "fact" it is supposedly referencing. The Trib article is about Decred and in some depth, but it is a bit breezy and all it really claims is that the cryptocurrency is just starting. A weak reference at best. One weak reference does not cut it. 2 would not cut it either. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Smallbones - and is Security Intelligence an RS or an IBM promotional newsletter? - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a reliable source but it may link to better sources. The Security Intelligence article on Decred links to articles that come from press releases when it says "According to The Hacker News" and "according to Softpedia." But their most recent news article has links in "Researchers at Proofpoint", "Check Point came across" that may be useful. Here's a news article that doesn't link to an external site in the text but there are "Sources: Trend Micro, Wired" at the bottom that should be used instead. Articles that are not from the news section seem to all be promotional articles from IBM employees and it might not be obvious from a quick glance. For example the article "Maximize Your Security Operations Center Efficiency With Incident Response Orchestration" doesn't mention IBM directly but has a disguised link to their website in "According to the Ponemon Institute’s Cost of a Data Breach Study,'" in which says "IBM is proud to sponsor the 13th annual Cost of a Data Breach study, the industry’s gold-standard benchmark research, independently conducted by Ponemon Institute." Џ 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking comment from sockpuppet of a banned user.

    Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Degeri (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) — Degeri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. More sources: https://mailchi.mp/technologyreview/chain-letter-767021 https://www.ccn.com/decred-jumps-34-after-politeia-announcement-binance-listing/[reply]

One of them appears to be from an MIT Tech Review newsletter. But I couldn't find it published on their website[1] (only relevant result is video of a Decred conference which isn't independent coverage). It's two short paragraphs after it listed on Binance and I guess he didn't think it was important enough yet for the main site. "It seems like an innovative approach to blockchain governance, which many crypto projects are struggling with. We’ll see if it actually works." WP:TOOSOON Other source is a cryptocurrency news site and from the result of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk I don't think most users would accept them for notability any time soon. Џ 03:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best source about Decred is this article in the Chicago Tribune. I could not find significant coverage in other reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more sources are found.

    Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New articles for consideration: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leslieankney/2019/01/11/who-should-hold-power-decred-governance-and-what-it-means-for-investors/ https://www.coindesk.com/one-of-investors-favorite-governance-blockchains-is-handing-over-20-million https://www.coindesk.com/decred-is-turning-its-entire-21-million-crypto-treasury-over-to-investors en https://www.blockchaintechnology-news.com/2018/01/23/atomic-swaps-decentralised-exchange-community-decred/ https://www.investinblockchain.com/what-is-decred/ --Degeri (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes contributor blog, crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 14 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Frazier[edit]

Ryan Frazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There are sources cited, but many are of the self-published variety, such as a press release from the AHA, and others are insignificant in their depth. Subject fails NPOL as only having served on the Aurora, Colorado city council, a body that doesn't have its own wikipage, and certainly does not count in NPOL. He ran for Congress and lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOL as per Nom. This rules out all of the best Frazier-focused sources. His company and charities don't seem big enough and there isn't enough coverage of him in his owner/trustee roles to satisfy GNG, afaict. If he was actually serving as a councillor atm then it would make sense to redirect him to the city's governance. As he isn't, that and the elections he was involved with are all equally legitimate. Thus redirect seems inappropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aurora CO is not large enough to hand all of its city councillors an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and non-winning candidates for election to Congress are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — for either role, the notability test is the ability to reliably source some evidence that he's a special case compared to most other people who've done the same things. There's no evidence of that being shown here, however — the sourcing is split between primary sources that don't support notability at all, and purely routine media coverage no different than every city councillor and every non-winning candidate could always show. This is not enough coverage, either in volume or in depth, to make him a special case among otherwise non-notable classes of topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this page is very much notable as the first African American male to be elected to Aurora's city council and the 1st African American republican to win a major party nomination in Colorado. Setting aside the timing of the this deletion thread (i.e. recent news that the subject is likely seek the mayor's office in 2019. See https://www.sentinelcolorado.com/0trending/city-desk-former-aurora-city-council-member-ryan-frazier-eyeing-run-for-mayor/), Aurora, Colorado is the 54th largest city in the U.S. and 3rd largest in Colorado. Subject is worthy of keeping and is line with the standards of other liked articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter1846 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Dexter1846 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If he were the first African-American (of any gender) to be elected to an city council, then that would be sufficient. But your latter point of "54th largest" - while that is big, it's miles off making it so exceptional as to stand out in that sense. It also doesn't demonstrate notability just to be the first "from the republicans", and for just a state I wouldn't buy that argument in any case.
I'm not the nom, so can't know their "why now", but if everything after mooting a run was cut off, and then the run into elections etc, we'd never be able to send any American politician to AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, the "why now" is that I had come across this page somehow in 2016 and tagged it for notability. I then forgot about the page until it popped up on my watchlist again. I looked into it and decided AfD was appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dexter1846 has made no edits outside of this topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not a notability freebie. Aurora CO is not a city whose city councillors would be expected to always have Wikipedia articles because city councillor, so being a person of colour is not an instant free pass to being more special than his colleagues. Every city that has a city council at all is always going to have its own first councillor of colour (and first woman, and first LGBT councillor, etc.) at some point in its past or future — so the notability test for that is not just being able to claim it, but being able to show that the distinction earned him much wider, deeper and more nationalized coverage than most of his other colleagues could routinely expect to receive. If this had somehow made him the first African American officeholder in the history of the entire United States, then he'd have a credible notability claim — but he's far from that, and simply being the first African American in his own city to accomplish something that hundreds or thousands of African Americans in other cities had already accomplished before him is not a free ticket into Wikipedia that would exempt him from having to have a lot more media coverage for it than this.
And incidentally, no, declaring his candidacy for mayor is not a notability claim either — even at the mayoral level, mayors still aren't all deemed automatically notable just for being mayors, and even when we do accept mayoralty as a notability claim a person still has to win the mayoral election, not just run in it, to claim notability on that basis. So your opinions about the "timing" of this discussion are irrelevant, and you can kindly go file them in your nearest garbage can. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of decorum (from one in particular) doesn't become any contributors here. Some of the comments seemingly indicate a particular unfavorable bias towards subject. The subject has and continues to be worth keeping. This page has existed since at least 2010 and is supported now as it was then. The 1st African American male city councilman of this city, the 1st African American to win a major party congressional nomination in Colorado may not be enough to those on this thread, but, it is of significance to a great many, nationally. Subject continues to make headlines and has appeared on numerous national and local television programs to weigh in on matters of both national and local interest. Not to be remiss in mentioning that subject's professional roles with the largest air medical company in the world and one of the most powerful healthcare organizations in the U.S. indicates a history of far reaching impact, again nationally. As far as the note above re: lack of contributions, didn't think that was a requirement to weigh in on a debate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter1846 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the reason why Muboshgu brought up the lack of edits is to point out that there may be a WP:COI between you and the subject of the article, which is fairly common in AfD discussions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter1846, the page existing since 2010 is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It just means nobody nominated it earlier. Other things you are mentioning (such as "1st African American male city councilman of this city, the 1st African American to win a major party congressional nomination in Colorado") are not notability criteria. Sourcing is. And if the "lack of decorum" comment was directed at me, I ask you to point out what exactly lacked decorum in my responses. Pointing out you are a single-purpose account is not inappropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I don't live in Colorado (or even in the United States), so I have no reason whatsoever to be biased for or against a city councillor in Colorado — but what Wikipedia does have is rules about how we decide who qualifies for an article on here and who doesn't. If there were no rules at all, then this wouldn't be an encyclopedia anymore, because every single person who exists would be able to start an article about themselves and their little sisters whether they'd accomplished anything genuinely noteworthy or not — but that's not what we're here for, so we have rules about the kinds of things a person has to accomplish, and the quality and depth of reliable sourcing they have to have received for those accomplishments, before they qualify to be included here. You're simply not demonstrating that Ryan Frazier meets our rules, because our rules simply don't include "holds a city council seat", or "won a nomination in a congressional primary but didn't win the general election", or "was the first [insert underrepresented minority group here] in his own city or state, but not in the entire country, to do either of those things".
Just to be clear: the lowest level of political office that guarantees a Wikipedia article is the state legislature. We accept mayors as notable if they're well-sourced, but do not just accept every mayor — and we accept city councillors as notable only if they serve in internationally prominent global cities and not if they serve in cities outside that special tier. So since most city councillors in Aurora CO aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, to earn special treatment Ryan Frazier would have to show that he was significantly more notable than most other city councillors — and to pass that test, the article would have to be referenced exponentially better than this is. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, while being the first person of color is certainly an important milestone for the city of Aurora it is not particularly notable outside of local coverage. GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete upon review of his sources, he fails WP:GNG, and doesn't have any automatic notability per WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 16 January 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany C. Meyers[edit]

Bethany C. Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - references are either connected to the subject of the article or about who they are in a relationship with. Notability is not inherited. Melcous (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I see two articles from People (magazine) and one from Elle (magazine) that are equally about both of them, and the SpectrumSouth and WellAndGood articles are neither mostly interviews, nor at all about the spouse. --GRuban (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Multiple sources are about their fitness career and the articles focusing on their marriage are from equal perspective, not about their spouse's notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As previously stated, there are several magazine articles that are about both of them equally, so it appears WP:SIGCOV is met. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Gnome, none of those are independent profiles or establish notability and they’re just fluff. Trillfendi (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm interested by @The Gnome:'s first argument. Do sources that talk about a couple not provide notability to the constitute individuals? An article talking about a group obviously doesn't enable the notability its providing to be inherited by the individual members. However, we don't have articles on couples - is the notability "lost"? Other issues notwithstanding, I'm inclined to think a reliable source discussing the couple can reasonably be used by both to back their individual articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Nosebagbear. That's an interesting outlook, if I may say so. If we have a couple of persons who are in a relationship and one of them is already a celebrity (or, at least, a person deserving a Wikipedia article, according to the established criteria) this situation just might actually make it more difficult for the other, non-celeb person to acquire on its own independent Wikinotability -and an article- what with WP:INHERITED and all that. Are we in a context where two persons of approximately equal notability stand better chances of each having its own article? -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: - it does at least run the risk in the sense of "this person is included because of this notable person, it's not actually on them". Certainly in terms of how INHERITED is interpreted in action it runs this risk. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the collection above simply confirms the dearth of reliable sources showing notability.
Badass is a clickbaiting advertorial from a shopping platform on female fitness trainers among whom Meyers is name dropped; the Bustle piece is about something entirely different, i.e. training apps, where Meyers is mentioned once; then a couple of texts in fringe websites (Spectrum South abnd Make Muse), along with a piece in Negative Underwear's corporate magazine and a piece in Caraa's corporate magazine ('free shipping' advertised in both); a couple of enthusiastic blogs (here and here), although we should know better; and a YouTube clip (ditto).
I'm sorry but the notability criterion is not satisfied. And bringing in this caseload of "citation" overkill to cover up the lack of sources is not to be commended. Perhaps some editors take up the case for such an article as if this is an identity politics issue. It is not - and Wikipedia is not the place where we advocate for causes, however worthy. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where any editor involved in this discussion has made this an issue of idenity politics. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe has reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is coverage of Meyers as a celebrity fitness instructor, in many mainstream newspapers, through Associated Press (I have added some references). Together with the Elle and Marie-Claire articles, which are about both of them equally, that is enough coverage in mainstream media to meet WP:BASIC. But I don't see why the Gay Star News and PinkNews, which also have coverage about Meyers, would not be considered reliable sources - they both have Wikipedia articles which don't say otherwise. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Intercom. Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gate intercom[edit]

Gate intercom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The same content is provided in the page Intercom, many of the categories are present there wired,two-way etc. Adding a "uses" section to the Intercom page and putting in this page's intro there should be enough in my opinion Daiyusha (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was wondering if a redirect to Intercom page is needed or not. I might of suggested merge a bit of content, but the lack of sourcing doesn't help that either. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Trillfendi (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As one vote is not justified at all, and a degree of uncertainty otherwise
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Intercom as this seems a plausible search term. As a note, Intercom currently contains no references at all and doesn't mention the word "gate"; that page clearly needs improvement. Delete first because this seems like a possible copyvio/linkspam promo of the one source in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Μerge whatever is assessed as having encyclopaedic value and can be attributed to sources onto the "Intercom" article. The whole text, however, of the contested article currently stands without any sources, as pure WP:OR. If it remains so, we can only delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 18 January 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 procedural close. The article has been draftified. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sé Quién Eres Tú[edit]

Sé Quién Eres Tú (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NALBUM despite being nominated for a Dove Award, it's a minor category (Spanish Language Album of the Year) and did not result in press for the album as can be seen from the lack of reviews, lack of coverage, and lack of information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 10 January 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 editors' consensus was unanimous to keep the article, with no one joining the nominator to call for deletion. This is a non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian van Huiden[edit]

Vivian van Huiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks anything anywhere close to a 3rd party secondary reliable source. IMDb is not reliable, and it is meant to be complete of everyone with no sense of notability. The other sources are the subjects own websites. Beyond that we have the subjects own websites. She has dubbing roles in the Dutch versions of foriegn animation. Dubbing rarely adds up to notability, so I see nothing that would indicate that she passes notability for actresses. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NACTOR applies to voice actors as well as actors, and voice acting covers voicing characters in animated films in the original and subsequent languages, and recording translated versions of live actors' voices. So, WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The subject of this article has played significant roles in the film Lilo and Stitch and the TV series Angelo Rules and Snuf de hond. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Analyzing each role (she passes WP:NACTOR)
  • 1. Phineas and Ferb- Isabella is only a side character per List of Phineas and Ferb characters
  • 2. The Powerpuff Girls- Tough to say here. Considering the show revolves around The Powerpuff Girls, I consider them main and the rest of them as side characters (especially villains who do not appear that often). Since there is no episode count of how much this character appeared at all, I am going to say not not significant
  • 3. Angelo Rules and *4 Lilo and Stitch they are significant roles and count for WP:NACTOR.
  • 5., 6. and 7. Non notable in Wikipedia standards (I fail to see how Rebecca came to conclusion otherwise for Snuf de Hond)

I have looked into a web archive of her CV and Angelo Rules is not mentioned there (this is from 2017) https://web.archive.org/web/20170321085514/http://www.vivianvanhuiden.com/cv/ but I found the mentions of Lilo and Stitch: The Series and Strawberry Shortcake series, but unclear which one. By the year date, I would assume Strawberry Shortcake's Berry Bitty Adventures which is a prominent role there, but if it was Strawberry Shortcake (2003 TV series) then it does not seem to be a prominent role. There is also a prominent dub role of Rosalina in The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) and the dub lead role in Life with Boys. Pinging RebeccaGreen to see this. So Johnpacklambert, basically what you would have to do here is to systematically show that these shows I mentioned are non notable first (which are Lilo and Stitch: The Series, The Naked Brothers Band and Life with Boys even if I discount Strawberry Shortcake for being a 2003 TV show and Angelo Rules for not being verifiable). Lilo and Stitch movie is obviously very notable so that is already one prominent role of hers. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is still a HUGE issue of WP:V here though. There are NO secondary sources that she voiced these roles at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply re Snuf de hond - it was a successful Dutch children's book series from the 1950s-1985, made into two films and a TV series, in all of which Vivian van Huiden appeared (see eg [3] about the first film). The author of the books, Piet Prins, has an article in Dutch Wikipedia. Here, for example, is a review of the first film [4] (which I will add to the article; I have just found it), and here [5] is some info about its sales in the first five months. Searching online from another country for reviews in a language I don't know is a slow business, but it looks to me that the films and TV series are notable. I will look more for secondary sources on her as a voice actress, and also look at the other roles Jovanmilic97 found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets the notability requirements for WP:ENTERTAINER as others have mentioned. Voice acting is different than dubbing. They don't just have some random person read a translation anymore, they hire people who can do the job properly, they as notable as regular actors. Dream Focus 12:52, 12 January 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. North America1000 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PayKings[edit]

PayKings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, the only coverage in RS is some brief mentions of inclusion on the Inc. 5000 in a Tampa Bay Times article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Speedy candidate. There is nothing in-depth about this company that can found in my search. A few mentions and press releases. Inc. 5000 doesn't give inherent notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The elements brought forward by Ralph747 do not contribute to notability at all. I strongly recommend a close reading of WP:PROF. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaul Navon[edit]

Shaul Navon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG. His scholar counts and Worldcat info are quite low, so I can't see how he passes either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep He is the author of three published books and dozens of articles in addition to teaching at a major Israeli university. Notability seems clear to me.Geewhiz (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Geewhiz. The fact that someone teaches at a university and has published articles and books does not make someone worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not have such a criterion! If it were otherwise, literally every person teaching at a university would be in Wikipedia! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly any of the references are about him - it mostly appears to be works by him. Number 57 10:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Navon's professional initiatives - please read everything: Creation and initiation of the establishment of two pioneering and primary and unique services in the State of Israel:
1. The hypnotherapy service at the Gastro Institute of the Tel Aviv Medical Center in the digestive system.
2. Treatment of hypnosis in fibromyalgia at the Rheumatological Institute of the Tel Aviv Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital.
3. Management of the rehabilitation psychology service of the Tel Aviv Medical Center Rehabilitation Center. Counseling, treatment of patients with physical illness and disability; Training rehabilitation rehabilitation interns in preparation for their certification as rehabilitation psychologists.
4. Navon with many certificates of expertise: Specialist in rehabilitation psychology, Expert-guide in rehabilitative psychology, Expert-guide in medical psychology, Expert in social-occupational psychology, Certified family therapist on behalf of the Israeli Society for Family and Marriage Therapy, A certified family therapist from the Israeli Association for Family and Marriage Therapy, Licensed to hypnotism and to scientific research in hypnosis, Examines the licensing tests for obtaining permission to hypnotize.
5. Research and Scientific Publications: Shaul Navon's research deals with the treatment of hypnosis and psychotherapy as therapeutic methods for removing patient objections. In 2005 he developed a groundbreaking model that gave him an international name called "disease / non-illness" for the treatment of patients with physical illnesses. This model is based on a paradigm approach in psychotherapy and hypnosis, based on transforming the patient's resistance states into cooperation in the therapeutic process. The approach is based on the presentation of two alternatives that enable transition from a narrative state of "illness" to a narrative of "non-illness".
7. Selected articles: 
Navon, S. (2005). The illness / non-illness treatment model: Psychotherapy for physically ill patients and their families. The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 33, 103-116.
Navon, S. (2005). Listening to Illness / Nonillness Motifs: A Case of Fibromyalgia. Families, Systems, & Health, Vol. 23, No. 3, 358-361.
Waxman, D. (2005). Do not Just Do Something, Stand There. Families, Systems, & Health, Vol. 23, No. 3, 362-363. Navon, S, (2014). The Illness / Non-Illness Model: Hypnotherapy for Physically Ill Patients. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Vol. 57, No. 1, 68-79.
Navon, S. (2015). The Dual-Dialectical Conceptualization in Psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 69, No.1, 53-63.
Navon, S. (2015). The Dual-Dialectical Conceptualization: A case of Crohn's disease. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, Vol. 26, No. 1. 4 (Dec), 247-352.
Navon, S., Meyerson, J., Lahav. Y. (2018). Two-Track Differentiation Paradigm in Psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. Vol. 48, Issue I, 27-32. (This article offers a new method within the cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat patients' blasts)
Navon, S. (2018). Two Are Better than One: Dual-Track Interventions in Hypnotherapy. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. Vol. 60, No. 4, 348-356.
8. Navon writes regularly in the health section of Haaretz.
9. Awards: His article "The Illness / Non-Illness Model: Hypnotherapy for Physically Ill Patients" won the 2014 Best Article of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis.
10. In 2016 he was awarded a special prize for the promotion of hypnosis in Israel by the Israeli Hypnosis Association.
11. Public Activities: Navon is a member of the Israel Hypnosis Association and served as its secretary between 2013 and 2010. He is also a member of the licensing committee for new candidates for a hypnosis license. In addition, he joined the European Association for Hypnosis and served as its budget controller.
Navon is a regular participant in the conferences of the Israeli Hypnosis Association and the European Association for Hypnosis and presents his research and new models in the field of hypnosis.
12. Based on Navon's research and professional articles, he was invited to be among the organizers of an international conference on stress and illness in Boston; To be the chairman of the conference and to deliver the main lecture at the conference.
13. Based on his appearance at this conference, Navon is invited to three famous institutions in Boston in May 2019:
A. A lecture on his model in hospital psychotherapy: Massachusetts General Hospital, affiliated with prestigious Harvard University.
B. Lecture at Harvard Medical School
C. Lecture in Hypnosis Society: New England Society of Clinical Hypnosis.
Ralph747 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that has any relevance to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Bridger, Navon has written a breakthrough model in psychotherapy and is invited to the world's most prestigious medical institutions, and what you refer to here in this discussion quotes?
It is known that when something new is proposed in world literature in psychotherapy, the citations are few due to the innovation in the article!
However, the number of quotes in all of Navon's articles exceeds 15!
1. Here is an article in a well-known Israeli journal called "Sichot" in which Navon's model: Illness / Non-Illness is cited as a central model in the treatment of diabetes patients:
Grossman, G. (2002). Family Therapy for Insulin-dependent Diabetics (IDDM): Literature Coverage and Case Presentation. Sichot, vol. 16, (3): 268-275.
2. Navon's model: Illness / Non-Illness is described in the important book: Shaul Navon, Rina Figin, Margalit Drori. Road paving: family coping with illness and disability, therapeutic models. Ramot Publishing, Tel Aviv University, 2011.
3. Navon established three services in Israel for the first time in the treatment of hypnosis. In this respect he is considered a pioneer in the field of establishing hypnosis services in Israel:
A. The establishment of a hypnotherapy service at the Institute of Gastroenterology at the Tel Aviv Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital: Treatment of digestive disorders. For this purpose he was sent for training in the treatment of :hypnosis in gastrointestinal disorders to Manchester, England. Peter Whorwell, Which is considered the first in the world to prove that hypnosis in Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) has proven itself in an extraordinary way.
B. The establishment of a hypnotherapy service in the Clalit Health Services: treatment of hypnosis in various medical and mental disorders.
C. The establishment of a hypnotherapy service at the "Meuhedet" HMO: the treatment of hypnosis in various medical and mental disorders.
4. Navon is the scientific editor of the book: Mali Ahrenfeld, Shaul Navon. The disease as a shared experience. Dyonon Publishing, Tel Aviv University, 2002.
5. Navon's article Navon, S, (2014). The Illness / Non-Illness Model: Hypnotherapy for Physically Ill Patients. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Vol. 57, No. 1, 68-79. Was chosen by the American Society for Medical Hypnosis as the best article for 2014 (I can attach a certificate of appreciation for that).This article has 20 quotes!
6. Navon's article:Navon, S., Meyerson, J., Lahav. Y. (2018). Two-Track Differentiation Paradigm in Psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. Vol. 48, Issue I, 27-32. offers a new method within cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat patients' blasts. I can add the opinion of one of the world's greatest researchers: Prof. David Spiegel of Stanford University
About Navon's articles.
7. Based on the above article, Navon was invited in August 2018 to organize an international conference in Boston: At this conference, one of the conference organizers was wise. He was invited to give Keynote Address (a keynote lecture on his article above) to be chairman of the second day of the conference (I can attach certificates of appreciation to that). This article has 21 quotes!
8. Based on Navon's success at his lecture at the Boston International Conference in August 2018, he was invited to give three lectures at three institutions: Harvard Medical School: (I can attach the invitations).
A. Lecture on the above article describing the new method I created in psychotherapy in the institution considered:
Massachusetts General Hospital affiliated with Harvard.
B. A lecture on hypnosis and his articles on hypnotherapy.
C. Lecture on Hypnotherapy in the Society - New England Society of Clinical Hypnosis.
9. Navon received a prize from the Israel Hypnosis Association (I can attach the certificate).
Ralph747 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The strenuous and extraordinary effort to attach notability to a non-notable subject is to be noted, admired, and rightfully discarded. Nothing in the avalanche supports notability as prescribed in WP:ACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is another example in which Dr. Navon is asked to be the Rerviewer of an article sent to him, in order to decide whether this article deserves to be in the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
I also attach an invitation to Navon to speak at the NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS.
Please read here what is written about Navon. Ralph747 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are bringing up irrelevant issues. Neither being asked to referee a paper nor being invited to speak at a conference comes anywhere near satisfying the requirements of WP:PROF. Please read it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi A. Alshdaifat[edit]

Shadi A. Alshdaifat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently accepted at AfC, but it does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NPROF or WP:BASIC. There is a lack of reliable sources covering the subject, he has not received a significant appointment or award, and there is no evidence that any of his work has been highly cited. Bradv🍁 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:He is an Associate Professor at the University of Sharjah. Later I have also found out that he was the head of the Public Law Department at Isra University. Doesn't this make him notable according to WP:NACADEMIC point number 5 or does it have to be any higher post to be eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalko Irina (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point 5 is for people who have a position higher than full professor on the basis of their scholarly accomplishments. Head of department is an administrative rather than scholarly accomplishment. There is a different point of WP:PROF that applies to administrators (number 6), but it's only for heads of entire universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. He does appear to have at least one published book ("International Law and the Use of Force Against Terrorism") and despite its publisher's not-entirely-stellar reputation I did find one published review of it. It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR but if we could only double both the number of published books and published reviews per book I could easily change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 18 January 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 editors' consensus is unanimous and the only request for deletion came from the nominator. This is a non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in Hospitals[edit]

Paintings in Hospitals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has a couple descent write-ups, but seems to still fall quite short of WP:CORP, also somewhat promotional. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of good sources are available in a search. I see many in Google books as well, which is not surprising as the org has a large collection of over 4000 paintings, and has been operating since 1959. IN-depth coverage in The Telegraph, the blog of University of the Arts London and the Guardian, in addition to the many refs in article already. The Org has clearly established a reputation over the 60 years, and their activities have been reported on by many sources, of which many are in-depth.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I agree with you that the Telegraph article is reliable and somewhat in-depth, although I would argue The Guardian article isn't really about the subject. It mentions the subject in passing, and the content of the article is really about the role of art in mental illness. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, and this seems no exception. Also, the article, being an interview, derives it content from the subject, not about the subject. Therefore, I'm left with a single reliable in-depth piece of coverage which was my motivation behind nominating it for deletion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that in good faith, but I think had you done a proper WP:BEFORE You would have found many excellent sources. It's widely reported on in independent RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Tone of the article could be improved, but not the sort of organisation which generates much criticism. Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, yep, totally agree that AfD isn't cleanup. But feel free to mention the sources you're referring to, so we can all take a look. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the media sources linked above there is plenty of coverage in books such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, fair, although I would argue this isn't an in-depth discussion of the organization. Essentially, it's speaking about the "The use of arts in healthcare department", and simply mentions the subject as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewmutt (talk • contribs)
@Drewmutt:, that was only an example - the very first Google Books hit with a preview. Other editors have shown that your deletion nomination was mistaken, and that your efforts at following WP:BEFORE were inadequate. Why not just accept that with good grace rather than dig yourself deeper into a hole? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that. It's a waste of time to discuss an article for deletion that has so many obvious good sources and wide coverage in independent RS. The gracious thing to do here is withdraw the nom. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is good coverage, with several articles in the Telegraph, one in the Guardian in 1995 ('Pictures' of Health, by Maggie O'Kane) [7], and as others have said, a Google Books search brings up sources including sections in books, articles in journals like The Nursing Times, Medical Social Work, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:20, 17 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aion Network[edit]

Aion Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly not notable, the subject fails WP:NCORP. Most of the existing references are to primary sources. The article itself is also badly advertorial. R2d232h2 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I added a number of sources that bring the topic past WP:GNG, arguably, but I'm less convinced they help prove WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Maybe? A merge to a related bitcoin topic might also be an option. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's the parent company Nuco but it's also tagged for notability. Џ 06:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator is a blocked sock puppet but I request that this AfD not be closed early because of that. The article was tagged for notability in November by a different editor. Џ 06:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - sources are primary and crypto blogs, even after additional work during this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article was clearly written by someone trying to advertise it. If stripped down to the few legitimate sources, it would never pass AfC. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an apparent sockpuppet nom, but the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines and is cryptocurrency 'cruft. Might as well delete as the page ended up here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 13:09, 17 January 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 Kayzo. Consensus that there is insufficient coverage for NSONG and that the absence of a RIOT article makes Kayzo the legitimate redirect target. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up (Kayzo and RIOT song)[edit]

Wake Up (Kayzo and RIOT song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable coverage; did not chart and no sales certification. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kayzo. Insufficient coverage to pass WP:NSONG, but the song is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Kayzo article. The other credited artist, RIOT, doesn't have their own article. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 12:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No coverage on google at this point to support a standalone topic. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 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) 18:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Vote Counts[edit]

Every Vote Counts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization lacking coverage in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources. The citations to reliable sources are only passing/insignificant mentions that do not establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. Citrivescence (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears to lack significant coverage in secondary sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organization has been featured in one news story (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/09/03/new-student-group-seeks-to-boost-turnout/), and it's been mentioned in all sorts of mainstream news outlets, which is unique and establishes a certain level of legitimacy. Is there an alternative to deletion, such as cutting down the length of the page, at least until the organization is covered in the future? I don't see the need to delete a relevant page for a national organization. Trimming it makes more sense. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage and its one feature is a blog post on Yale's student newspaper website. GPL93 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appear to be multiple independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: This is the second time you have made this statement on a deletion discussion I've started. I have done my due diligence per WP:BEFORE and did not see two independent, reliable sources with significant mentions of the org. To keep the discussion constructive, please source statements like these by linking to specific citations. Citrivescence (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I regard the Wall Street Journal and USA Today as quite independent. Don't you? Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – No doubt in my mind that this passes GNG. It doesn't appear to fail any specific guidelines. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON & Per nom. AD Talk 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources fall apart on several grounds: the best don't actually discuss EVC at all or only offer a mention. Others are non-independent interviews. Still others are not accepted as reliable (and in this case, most likely non-independent) sources. One is written by one of the organisation's exec so obviously isn't independent. It's a fairly google-unfriendly term, but another sweep didn't pick up anything more helpful than that already included. To certain comments above, I'd note that sources being reliable is only one criterion of being a good source. I couldn't spot a good redirect target, but happy to shift if someone can make a good case. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not (quite) meet WP:NORG, the available sources do not provide significant coverage, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of WP:TOOSOON. If and when they make more noise, then more Wikipedia-worthy sources will probably appear! As things stand, the sourcing is quite weak. The Real Clear Policy piece and The Hill one are self-written; the USA Today report is about voter turnout in general and the effort to induce more people to vote, and mentions the subject in passing; same goes for the WSJ report; and the rest are articles in college newsletters, such as this piece in the Yale Daily News. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 18 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VR't Ventures[edit]

VR't Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provided do not meet WP:NCORP and I wasn't able to find anything better online. Virtually all coverage in RS is of exhibitions that VR't Ventures has been involved with, with barely more than a sentence devoted to covering the company. Other provided sources include interviews with key members of the company and a TechCrunch article that devotes a paragraph of coverage in a wider article about VR applications. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle asian traits[edit]

Subtle asian traits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a facebook group which becomes famous by doing memes on facebook and got article into nytimes and bbc. Article seems like an advertisement. Point out your views. AD Talk 19:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article about a Facebook group? I assumed this would be an easy candidate for deletion, probably sourced to slim blurbs or bare interviews. I was wrong. Both the NYT and BBC provided feature-length treatments with background, context, and analysis. Not good enough? The Atlantic. The New Yorker. NBC. Slate. The Daily Dot. Probably more, I stopped looking. Is it silly, and a little weird, for a Facebook group to get that sort of coverage? Sure. But that isn't a policy based cause for deletion, and I don't see anything else that would be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely agree with Squeamish Ossifrage - I fully expected to suggest deletion prior to digging into the references. It easily meets the WP:WEBCRIT requirement of "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Jmertel23 (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this discussion ends with a "keep" determination, the article should probably be moved to "Subtle Asian Traits" (capitalized as it is a title). I don't want to move it now, as I don't know if that will cause an issue with this discussion? Jmertel23 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agreed. Page moves during an AFD are technically permitted, but sometimes cause drama, so I assumed the move could wait until discussion was complete (and assuming it survives this process). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what an interesting set of reads. GNG & WEB both more than satisfied. Move obviously legitimate post-AfD close. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG. Plenty of IRS for WP:NEXIST. Not at all sure if any WP:BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While a stub. it has plenty of mention in secondary sources to be notable. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that the subject is a notable politician. (non-admin closure) Politrukki (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy[edit]

Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing malformed nomination on behalf of IP editor, whose rationale is below. The WP:POLITICIAN criteria is applicable here, and suggests that the subject may be notable - but I have concerns about the sources provided, as they do not appear to confirm what the article says. For example, Source 1 (dated in early 2018) seems to talk about the subject as a potential candidate, but is cited as a source to show that they had won their election. Even if the subject is notable, we need to document that notability. A charismatic young politician is not strictly notable, whereas an elected member of parliament is - so we need, at a minimum, to improve the sourcing to show that notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is Sheikh Sharhan Naser Tonmoy only a member of parliament and won the election in recent. There's a lot of Bangladeshi notable politician who doesn't have Wikipedia yet and he is very new. Well, this is not a point. the point is sources added to this article are regarding "girls got crush on him", "became web sensation" etc. just because of crush he is not notable for Wikipedia, not for member of parliament either. And if you talk about that he his from Sheikh Wazed family, this is very very far from a notable background, he is just connected to the family in so far. This article can be write again in the future if seems the topic is notable enough. So i'm adding deletion tag and requesting to admins to create a deletion discussion. I don't actually know how to create deletion discussion so putting on it's talk page. Also i'm inviting some admins to look at this Sandstein Scott Burley Just Chilling Thank you. Tasnuva 123.108.246.43 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep An AFD started by an IP who does not seem to be familiar with notability guidelines. Oddly enough is familiar enough to tag some admins. This is a rather mess AFD process. I am going to directly copy my argument from the WP:NPOL,
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
He was elected to the National Parliament of Bangladesh, when or how long is irrelevant. I call for speedy closure based on our policies on notability regarding politicians.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to closer admin.Vinegarymass911 is the creator of the article. And just wants to know, is there any rules that IP addresses can't make edits or request for deletion? and I tagged admins just because you reverted my edit with saying vandalism, so I tagged admin just to look at this talk page and copy to project page. of course Sheikh Tonmoy is handsome and member of parliament and I thought this can't make him notable for Wikipedia. If he is, so this article will survive. there is nothing to worry. And yes, maybe i don't know the full rules of Wikipedia but the thing is you are giving your own opinion on a page's deletion discussion which was created by you!. I also don't know if this goes to deletion discussion policy. You know the best maybe. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.246.43 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that there's a rule against IPs making requests for deletion — what unregistered IPs cannot do is actually create new Wikipedia pages that don't exist yet, which gets in the way of completing a deletion nomination because initiating the deletion discussion requires creating a new page. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This. That's why I went ahead and completed the listing on your behalf. IP editors can post on talk pages, which is why the system allowed you to post your rationale on the AFD talk page, rather than here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He was unquestionably elected to the national parliament and so satisfies WP:NPOL. From here out is simply a matter of article development, not deletion process. I agree that the circumstances of the nomination are... unusual, but we need not even address that to reach the outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Tonmoy has been elected and sworn in see article listed above. Article satisfies WP:NPOL. Aurornisxui (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Evidence that Sheikh Tonmoy/Tanmoy was elected to parliament in the 2018 Bangladeshi general election is plentiful.[8][9][10] (enter Bagerhat-2 in List of candidates section). So he is presumed notable according to the first bullet point of WP:POLITICIAN. After the election last month, there are eight relatives of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in parliament. Reliable sources take note of the family connections.[11] WP:SNOW applies. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's been elected to the parliament, then he passes WP:NPOL. (Whether he's handsome or not is irrelevant to our notability criteria, however — lots of unattractive people are notable, and lots of attractive people aren't.) Once the fact that he passes a notability criterion been established, which it has, any further issues with the content or the sourcing are matters for the editing process, not the deletion process. If there are other Bangladeshi parliamentarians who don't have articles yet, then IP is very welcome to help us get those articles in place. Bangladesh is one of those countries where, because we have relatively few active contributors who are very knowledgeable about it, we're lagging on getting its notable politicians in place — but it's not that they're not notable, it's just that we don't have enough editors doing the work. So step up and help us get more of Bangladesh's NPOL-passing MPs into Wikipedia instead of trying to tear down the MPs who are already here, aight? Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 13 January 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 snow keep per snowball clause . (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Thurer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shari Thurer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet any of the auto-keep criteria of WP:PROF either. Arguments which led to the keep closure of the AFD fourteen years ago seem uncompelling. SITH (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Myths of Motherhood has been cited over 400 times according to Google Scholar, and was reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and The New York Times, among others. So at a minimum that book is notable. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Like it was said, her book is notable for Wikipedia, but she herself is not. The article could have been repurposed as The Myths of Motherhood but there is no content here to so. Shari fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, nor any special criteria outside of it is met (no impact, no high citation number for PROF, no notable awards for BIO, nothing). Also the fact this article survived in this permastub state for FOURTEEN YEARS (!!) tells enough about her notability and how many articles like these will slip through sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As agreed above, her book Myths of Motherhood has multiple published reviews. But, although less well known, her other book The End of Gender does also have multiple published reviews [12] [13]. So she passes WP:AUTHOR for more than one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David Eppstein's argument. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as reviews of the two books already mentioned, there was plenty of coverage of her work before she published Myths of Motherhood. In 1980, there were articles in many US newspapers and some Canadian ones about 'A hidden bias in children's books' against the disabled or those who looked different (eg the Boston Globe [14]. In 1982, articles about 'Surgery: The Mind Can Be as Affected as the Body, Doctors Discover', eg the Los Angeles Times [15]. Her advice is quoted (7 paras) in 'Mother's Day tips for stepmothers' before she had published Myths of Motherhood (eg the Boston Globe [16]. Some of those sources include info about her age and her husband, if there's a concern about biographical information. So that's over 25 years of coverage of her work - she definitely meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David and WP:GNG per Rebecca. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 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. North America1000 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna DeBono[edit]

Shauna DeBono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, looks to be self-promotion. No news coverage or reliable sources, just IMDB, Instagram and the like. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 10 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfront (TV series)[edit]

Waterfront (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non notable "cancelled before airing" TV series that fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that is not routine (ordered by CBS, cancelled by CBS). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pity the show never saw the light of day, but as such, practically no focused coverage. The following backstage reference was all I could find to help, and I don't feel that is enough to show WP:GNG has been met. Some of the content might be worth adding to the lead actor's page, as relevant to his career. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nicole Kristal, November 17, 2006, Actors to CBS: Save Our 'Waterfront', Backstage
  • Delete. I don't even recall starting that article... Counterfit (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This one's probably getting deleted, but I may ask for a WP:REFUND to draft for this one because while the current article is unsourced, I am quite sure this got more coverage than is indicated at the article. What I'm not sure is if it got enough coverage to merit an article – I'd have to investigate it, but I don't have time to do that right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I'm a fan of vintage TV, as it happens, but Wikipedia is not the place where I'd necessarily look for vintage TV shows. Wikipedia is not about indicriminately listing information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 18 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Hatae[edit]

Hana Hatae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:ENT, only playing a secondary child character in 11 episodes of Star Trek:Deep Space Nine and the same character in a fan-made film. The references are either startrek.com (with one dedicated interview), Kitchen Nightmares, and a Pepperdine University student newspaper interview of her mother, so the article also fails WP:GNG. MarkH21 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 10 January 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 United States fiscal cliff#Gang of Eight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gang of Eight (fiscal matters)[edit]

Gang of Eight (fiscal matters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covered at Fiscal Cliff#Gang of Eight. Does not justify a fork. I recommend a redirect there. wumbolo ^^^ 10:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 10 January 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Britton[edit]

Ben Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

High achieving early career scientist, but fails WP:PROF, very little to satisfy our notability criteria aside from their social media activity. This is a potential WP:COI article creation, although the deletion nomination is based purely on notability. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her comments there are less than fully candid. Personally I think the notability case is borderline here, but the muddying of the waters by COI editing really doesn't help. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what do you mean by ‘less than fully candid’? I have nothing to do with Ben academically and did not know him well when I started the page- the only part I’ve added since was his involvement in a charity and a recent academic project. Nothing impartial, no ‘puffery’. If someone can point out where my ‘less than candid’ admission of a potential COI impacts the neutrality of this article I’m happy to remove those sections. Or someone who works in nuclear engineering/ microscopy could develop this further...Jesswade88 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is fully explained on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me [17]. I'm not sure if his IOM3 Fellowship is selective/prestigious enough to count for WP:PROF#C3, but it doesn't hurt. In addition, he appears to be something of a quotable source for expert opinion on nuclear energy [18][19][20], maybe not enough so for a slam-dunk pass of WP:PROF#C7, but again, leaning in that direction. While I see the possibility for a COI in principle, the article that we have now does not itself appear problematic to me. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum OK, after reading around more, I'm satisfied that an IOM3 Fellowship counts for WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect another COI edit has recently been made to this biography, going by the username, I have notified the user involved. The article may not seem problematic, but COI editing introduces bias, whether intentional or not. It is a little concerning that even though this AfD makes mention of COI concerns, such editing continues. I assume good faith in that the editors involved are likely inexperienced and unaware of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Notability needs to be established by reference to significant coverage in reliable third party sources. The above keep !vote immediately above this comment does not satisfy this requirement. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COI confirmed by editor here. I undid the edit as I don't feel the particular internal university award is particularly noteworthy.Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice of off-wiki discussion of this AfD. This AfD has been mentioned in a non-neutral manner off-wiki. Polyamorph (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Are you referring to this tweet by Britton? (One of the most "fun" aspects of having a @Wikipedia article about yourself is watching people discuss whether you are notable or not. But of course, the living subject of the article is not allowed to comment or remind the people bickering that their comments are about a human...) I checked the various social-media venues where I figured such mentions would occur, and I didn't see anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is appropriate to directly link to off-wiki discussion, but since you have I will reply "Yes". Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly I have a Conflict of Interest, as I am the subject of the article and as noted by the Tweet TheSandDoctor I can comment here.

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence of external comment on nuclear power aspects - I am quoted by World Nuclear News - http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Costs-will-dictate-future-of-UK-nuclear,-says-univ. and http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-academics-join-pro-Hinkley-nuclear-project-deba and my comments have been covered in The Engineer https://www.theengineer.co.uk/building-a-future-career-prospects-in-civil-engineering/ , and I have written to the House of Lords https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/63/63.pdf and http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/eu-energy-and-environment-subcommittee/brexit-energy-security/written/69411.html . I have contributed to the House of Lords on Nuclear - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/Nuclear-research-technologies/Nuclear-research-technologies-evidence.pdf . I have contributed to 3rd party discussions on Climate Change - https://www.climateworks.org/clean-power-2017-deep-dive/ .

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence of my comment on LGBTQ+ issues - I am quoted by Chemistry World (this is the press of the Royal Society of Chemistry) - https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/a-walk-on-the-pride-side/3009251.article

Re: WP:PROF#C7 If you want evidence that I am a notable ECR researcher - I have been quoted by Nature on how to set up a lab - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05655-3 . I have been quoted by C&EN on how to improve communication in a lab https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i29/Slack-ing-helps-chemists-manage.html .

Regarding awards WP:PROF#C2: The Royal Academy of Engineering / Engineer's Trust award of "Young Engineer of the Year" is a Premier Award of the Royal Academy of Engineering - https://www.raeng.org.uk/grants-and-prizes/prizes-and-medals/individual-medals/young-engineer-of-the-year. I was one of 5 awardees and the citation is here: https://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2016/june/future-engineering-leaders-win-academy-awards - this is a nationally recognised award, given by the Engineering Equivalent of the Royal Society. This was reported in the Engineering press - e.g. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/royal-academy-honours-engineers-early-career-achievements/

The IOM3 Silver Medal is a Premier Award of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. This is the learned society who recognise and award Chartered Engineering and Chartered Scientist status. The Silver Medal is a premier award to recognise silver medal achievement - https://www.iom3.org/news/2014/apr/15/institute-medals-and-prizes-2014 - and I was awarded this in 2014.

Regarding Fellowship WP:PROF#C2: I am a Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. This is the learned institute for my discipline. It is equivalent to IEEE (which is the example given) and to the Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, and equivalent scholarly institutions in the UK. I am also a Chartered Engineer and Chartered Scientist. For all these, I am one of the youngest in the UK to have these.

Regarding my research fellowship, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering WP:PROF#C2: This was covered in the engineering press - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/september-2014-online/materials-study-aims-at-improving-nuclear-reactor-performance/ This was covered in the Futurist - https://search.proquest.com/openview/f18d55a8f332425856d380e2c18ac3a0/1?cbl=47758&pq-origsite=gscholar The Imperial College press article was picked up externally - https://www.myscience.org.uk/wire/two_imperial_researchers_announced_as_fellows_of_royal_academy_of_engineering-2014-imperial

Regarding impact WP:PROF#C1: One aspect of my research is the field of electron backscatter diffraction. My work is recognised as world leading in this area. I am current conference chair at the UK RMS EBSD meeting (2019) - https://www.rms.org.uk/discover-engage/event-calendar/ebsd-2019.html. I have been Conference Chair of the 2014 meeting. I was conference session chair at the 2018 International Microscopy Congress - http://imc19.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/IMC19-Program_30052018.pdf. Publication 'metrics' are difficult (see https://sfdora.org/) but within my field, my work is received favourably (e.g. "Crystal Orientations and EBSD - Or Which Way is Up?" has been downloaded >22,000 times (presently it is at 25,283 downloads) as per reporting of the publisher Joe d'Angelo who works for Elsevier (https://twitter.com/jodangeeto/status/1065981372186136576) and for context this article remains one of the most downloaded articles from the journal https://www.journals.elsevier.com/materials-characterization - see Most Downloaded).

BenBritton (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declaration of Conflicted Interest: Dr Ben Britton was a research student I supervised in the Oxford Micromechanics Group. I continue to interact and collaborate with him [which I enjoy and gain from].

Being new to Wikipedia I have looked up the conditions for notability for an academic: 'Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable... 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.' Dr Britton was awarded the IoM3's Silver Medal in 2014. The IoM3 is the national learned society for materials science and they declare this one of their premier awards. These are quite easily verifiable points of fact. I would have thought this in itself would be enough. AngusW99 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that AngusW99 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Having said this, I don't particularly see sufficient evidence for Significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good faith nomination, WP:BEFORE was followed. The subject is not clearly notable as you state, hence the Notability tags which were removed by the article creator who has confirmed their COI on this article talk page. This is a borderline pass of WP:NPROF C3 and possibly C1 at best and warrants discussion. More evidence of Significant coverage in reliable sources would be a more helpful argument than simply "clearly passes NPROF" with no justification. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did do a WPBEFORE? Right, thanks for letting us know. ——SerialNumber54129 09:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on balance. The awards are junior awards for promising scientists under 30, and usually we consider junior awards as equivalent to "May become notable someday" especially when the award goes to several people, --but the IOM3 seems more important than most junior awards. . The work is very well cited for the field--citations of 146, 136, 128 .... However, all of these were published as a joint author with his advisor. The question in such cases, is who gets the principal credit--it can be either way. Sometimes a senior person adds a junior who had only a minor role; sometimes the senior person adds his name to the junior only because the work was supported by the senior person's grant--and all sorts of intermediate situations. There is no consistency, even within fields, and it is not easy for outsiders to judge. The paper published when Britton was still as PhD student has the highest citations, but it's the oldest, and papers accumulate citations with time. (As AngusW99 well knows, these are some of the limitations of such counts)
I do point out that being quoted by the press and testifying before a committee is not considered very heavily towards notability here, and especially that arguments by someone for their own notability are looked upon with a great deal of skepticism, and to a lesser degree the same goes by arguments from a colleague. . DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems to meets WP:NACADEMIC #1 (high citation rate), #2 (the IOM3 Silver medal), and #3 (Fellowship of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), which "is an award granted to individuals that the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3), judges to have made “significant contribution or established a record of achievement in the materials, minerals, mining ”.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The original article was a vanity piece created by a conflicted editor, and her continued involvement hasn't helped, but he's on the verge of meeting WP:NACADEMIC (based largely on the IOM3 silver medal: the FIMM is far too low level to count for anything) and will clearly pass it at some point in the next few years. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Price[edit]

Verity Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional article that appears to fail GNG. Lots of claims about winning talent searches but no independent sources to back them up. The articles mentioned are mostly dead and a google search turns up little Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find very little coverage. The longest is on a website called Spice4Life [21], which I don't think would be considered a reliable source. Apart from that, I have found two sentences about her crowdfunding her album, in 3 papers about crowdfunding (two by the same person) ([22], [23], [24]), and an article about her winning a Toastmasters competition [25], which turns out to be a blog post on a local website. This does not add up to significant coverage, and she fails WP:GNG (and I can't see anything else she would meet either). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (not to mention the promotional tone and lack of inline citations, but those could be fixed). MarkH21 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep There is a more than fair amount of sources, even if they are not formatted as footnotes, and therefore meets WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
  • Could you please let us know which of those amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I just went through the article to check the sources and every one of them was either unavailable or written by Price herself. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be PROMO for a nonnotable performer, fails WP:MUSIC, fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with the Verity Price who shows prize Herefords [26].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Day[edit]

Jyoti Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of passing WP:GNG and unsourced in tone. Sheldybett (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No SIGCOV, even searching for the celebration in Kolhapur, the only coverage seems to be on the YMCA blog. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable to be on wikipedia right now. AD Talk 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No good coverage in an English google search. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Badly written article, and an award not even a year old observed by a YMCA, not notable. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no coverage. Appears to be just advertising for the YMCA in Kolhapur - the same author created a (now deleted) POV-riddled article for that particular YMCA that was simply a copyright infringment pasted directly from their website. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 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. It seems clear that WP:GNG is not met, but the WP:N, which supersedes GNG, states clearly that an article should be kept if WP:SNG is met. A clear majority of arguments posit that SNG (via NMODEL) is met, but NMODEL merely point to entertainers in general. I presume the inference is that modeling for a major brand/show is a "significant role" in a "notable production" As this is not clearly outlined it weakens the argument, hence my no-consensus closure. The article meets WP:V, so not at issue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kätlin Aas[edit]

Kätlin Aas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I realize she meets NMODEL but besides an interview (with Interview) in my Before I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage at all (for GNG if that wasn’t obvious, which on multiple occasions now I have been told supercedes any respective N-career). Trillfendi (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ve added and RfC to her talk page during this time Trillfendi (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT#1. Nominator acknowledges that the subject passes an SNG, and "I haven't seen any..." is not actually a statement about the article subject, so no valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Bakazaka (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: Look at the article and you clearly see there are no reliable sources. So in my BEFORE I tried to find some that would contribute but “I haven’t really seen any”. It’s that simple. Being friends with other models is not GNG.Trillfendi (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a speedy keep is to save the community's time and attention. You're asking editors to go out and look for more sources for someone who you already acknowledge passes the appropriate SNG. So, let me ask it this way: do you think that making absolutely sure that someone who passes an SNG also passes GNG is so valuable to our readers that it should consume the community's time right now? Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her meeting NMODEL for closing Prada (which I believe is something people could possibly find sources for) is only my opinion. It’s certainly not the threshold for NMODEL such as a cover or contract. I’m operating with the presumption that there may be reliable sources in other languages that another editor may present that I haven’t found.Trillfendi (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're operating with the presumption that she's notable, and there's still no valid rationale for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the beginning she may meet NMODEL. But as the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant in that space. You can have your opinions. Trillfendi (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the community's time and attention are limited and valuable, and I reiterate my speedy keep !vote. Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don’t “agree” with my rationale for deletion doesn’t mean it’s not “valid”. Clearly it was proposed for a reason—a reason I stand by. If anyone else wants to vote on this or disagree with me they’re welcome to.Trillfendi (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The consensus at Julia Dunstall was that she failed NMODEL as well as GNG. By contrast, KA seems to pass both NMODEL and GNG, e.g. [27] and multiple other RS one can find doing WP:BEFORE. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are “model wall” interviews where they ask ~10 random “what’s your favorite thing” questions notability? That doesn’t qualify as GNG. I have seen Wikipedia articles outright rejected for that. Can you find an actual article that goes in depth about her like a Vogue? I sure can’t. Vogues frequently profile new or upcoming models even if it’s only a few paragraphs. As it stands now, “she has modeled for so-and-so (with no reliable sources to back it up), she’s friends with so-and-so (irrelevant) and an obsolete link that she’s not included in doesn’t hold up.Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A source just using a picture as part of a slideshow of 30 other models is not notability. “Kätlin Aas (2009)” is not notability. Directories are not reliable sources for notability (some administrators don’t even consider models.com a reliable source at all but I disagree with them there). If she had significant coverage, then those things would only serve as back up.Trillfendi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what we need is independent, 3rd party, indepth secondary coverage. Interviews and pictures in slide shows are not this. Even if they were that is no argument for speedy keep at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You get it. It’s truly disarming that some here think models.com / slides / directories makes all policy regarding general notability and secondary coverage thrown out of the window for this “special occasion”. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - to pass both NMODEL and GNG. Person passes an SNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: Please point out to me where you see any GNG because of the sources in the article from a YouTube video to directories to a broken link at “Lexposure.net”, I see none. Per Johnpacklambert, there’s really gotta be in-depth secondary coverage for her.Trillfendi (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheldybett: Will somebody—anybody—show me where they see GNG here? I.e. significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this on the basis of GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but she does not need to pass the GNG since NMODEL is applied to fashion models anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheldybett: Basically the reason I’d nominated this was because of a previous of a model who met NMODEL but not GNG (only tangible reference was a Teen Vogue interview from over a decade ago). The same situation is happening here. No independent, reliable sources that go in depth on her career. All that’s here is one sentence of a smattering of jobs. It’s just not it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NMODEL. "I haven’t actually seen any independent significant coverage" isn't grounds for deletion. ExRat (talk)
@ExRat: Because significant coverage clearly doesn’t exist for her, as evidence by no one else even finding any, including my Before. That’s why I proposed deletion because of GNG, NOT because of NMODEL which I saw as a similar case to Julia Dunstall. Clearly I already addressed that in the nomination. but if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future if no improvements are even made. And doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL.Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of her accomplishments are listed at New York magazine - and those are merely up to 2012. I've Googled her and came up with a few references. Sure there are more, but I am not that invested, TBH. Maybe I'll look again tomorrow. ExRat (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ExRat: You do realize that NYMag’s model profile is simply a directory (a defunct one at that, they haven’t updated anybody’s profile since around 2012) that doesn’t establish notability for any model, right? Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never said that the site I gave establishes her notability. Merely stated there is a list of accomplishments there that could possibly be sourced. Still a "Keep" for me. ExRat (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC
@ExRat: ... There are no reliable sources for it. That’s why the article is being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She has appeared on the cover of Ukrainian Vogue and Vogue Netherlands, as well as in editions of Italian, Mexican, and Chinese Vogue. That, I am quite sure meets WP:NMODEL. There are sources for some of this stuff out there. ExRat (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“gofugyourself”.com definitely isn’t one (whoever put that should be ashamed). All folks can seem to muster up are the agencies she’s contracted to (y’all know better) or models.com. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many Vogue covers are we up to now? Three? Four? ExRat (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to FMD, she has those Vogue covers (brava), but if only people could actual sources for them that aren’t directories or primary sources. Ay, there’s the rub. And the Wikipedia articles for those editions, sadly, are unsourced and rely on original research primarily by a redlink user named Arjiansumanti. In my experience, some editors believe certain lower circulation markets of fashion magazines are non-notable while others think even far flung locations like Vietnam count.Trillfendi (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doing a Prada show isn’t even the standard of NMODEL"? WP:NMODEL states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The Vogue article 'Why Prada’s Model Casting Matters' (referenced in the article) says "Prada remains the ultimate “get.” The prestige and visibility that come from being on the Prada runway is incomparable—whether you’re a newcomer having your first big moment or a star returning after a lengthy hiatus. As a result, Prada’s castings have become the barometer by which other shows are judged, as well as an arbiter of industry beauty norms." And it goes on, "Prada consistently launches careers, and though not every model selected for a Prada exclusive contract goes on to greatness, the brand’s success rate is enviable. Those chosen to open the show, walk in it exclusively, or debut via a Prada campaign are essentially winners of modeling’s golden ticket". That, to me, says that opening a Prada show is significant, and the other brands she has modelled for also have notable shows. And you yourself said that she meets WP:NMODEL in your nomination.
Not being able to see the article about Julia Dunstall, I can't see what she did - but the Delete votes all seemed to assume that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. However, WP:ENT does not specify coverage, unlike, for example, WP:AUTHOR #3, which does specify that the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work. ... must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I do not see Julia Dunstall as an example to follow in AfD - it just happened that all the editors who voted there followed you in assuming that WP:NMODEL requires SIGCOV. I think that is a misinterpretation of WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying NMODEL and GNG automatically have to contradict each other, because obviously, every article is different. Some just happen to be both. The case with Dunstall is that though she did notable work such as Balenciaga (if we’re grasping for straws), there were simply no way to verify anything. We searched but just couldn’t find. I’m well aware of the “value” placed on a Prada show, that’s why I created Lineisy Montero and Anok Yai, for example. And that’s why I acknowledged that doing the Prada show could be an NMODEL. I never said it was definitive, it was just really matter of my own opinion and presumption. But where are the independent sources? That’s the thing. The thing no one can seem to find because believe me, I tried. The difference is that Montero and Yai have many sources to back them up, including an independent Harper’s Bazaar article that gave many details about Montero’s nascent career and a long Washington Post profile for Yai. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically go on to have the prestigious career that it’s said to be a launch pad for. That’s just not how the industry is. Every model who does Prada doesn’t automatically get a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, then Madison Leyes would have an article. If a model has notability, I’m sure she’d have more sources for her career.
Also, you can’t reference her agency for a job. It’s a primary source connected with the subject. Trillfendi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some sources that verify that she modelled for some of the brands mentioned. They are not SIGCOV, but if you're concerned about verifying that she had a career after Prada in 2009, they do verify that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know she’s had a career after Prada (I didn’t find out about her until 2016), it’s just that there has to be reliable sources for it. Emphasis on reliable. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point if all people can manage to do is muster up slide show images with no captions, and directories, then what I said about GNG is vindicated. No one can find a Vogue profile of any kind? I went to the last page of Google trying to. Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Trillfendi: NYMag, NYT Magazine, and Vogue are all RS whose statements about KA can be considered accurate and whose interest in KA demonstrates her notability as a model. She had a smashing debut in 2009, which many different sources talked about. This was not a case of her "doing" a show but of her opening for Prada and (more unusual) closing for them. Notability is not temporary but even now, a decade later, she is getting covers and other major appearances, getting mentioned by name in articles that are not specifically about her. Why? Because she is a notable model. There are multiple interviews of KA, in Interview magazine and on YouTube, because she is considered notable as a model. Your statement that "the deletion of Julia Dunstall proved: if the model doesn’t meet GNG then NMODEL is irrelevant" is not proved or even supported by that discussion, where 3 of the 4 Delete !voters specifically said that Dunstall failed NMODEL. Most of the people following this AfD agree that KA is notable. Instead of learning from this, you assert that you will create a new AfD if this one does not go your way: "if people can’t see that I’m definitely not above renominating in the future." Considering how many articles people usefully AfD every day (we all owe thanks to those people!) it is amazing that nearly half the articles you proposed for deletion have been Kept or even Speedy Kept.[28] If you try to learn from what other people say in these discussions, rather than just arguing for your own point of view, you will become a better editor. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: Ostensibly you misunderstand the purpose of what NYMag profiles were meant to be (I’m just thankful they’re archived now that any and all model coverage now goes to The Cut). Thousands of unnotable models have them just as top models do and everyone in between*. Isn’t the purpose of a Wikipedia article to have in-depth, independent significant coverage to substantiate such information? You also misunderstand what a Model Wall style interview is. One source from T magazine with a few random questions like “what’s your favorite tv show?” can’t hold up an entire article. Then unknown Emily Ratajkowski got an entire editorial by NYT typically reserved for politicians just for being in a music video if you want to measure it that way. If that Vogue article about Prada models is anything to go by, then having given more space to Willow Hand and calling her a “key catwalker”, why was Hand’s page declined when another editor drafted it? It wasn’t formatted that well so I went in and fixed it up to get it approved, but all career information was there and she’d been noticed by Harper’s Bazaar? That same Vogue article mentioned Maartje Verhoef whose page was declined several times by another editor’s work because she quote “wasn’t shown to meet notability by the ‘simplest standards’” even though there were like 5 paragraphs of very detailed career summary and the same references you’re trying to justify! I fixed that one too but I digress. Since the hell when is YouTube considered a reliable source when I simply put that video there to clarify the chosen pronunciation of her name?
This isn’t about me. Perplexed why you would even “track” the ratio; I propose articles for deletion on criteria I believe it fits and let other editors decide what should be done based on their interpretation of those rules. Whether articles are kept or deleted I really don’t care. The only reason I’d renominate if I see the same problems persist over a period of time. Nothing about the process is personal or an indictment. But now the goal posts have now become musical chairs. The same reason you want to keep this article is the very same thing that gets articles declined or deleted time, time, time, and time again! Chase Carter has a Maxim cover, appeared in SI Swimsuit, profiled regionally, and by Fox News and Nylon. Declined until I pointed out the hypocrisy. Alanna Arrington...it took the likes Vogue US UK and AUS, W, Instyle, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch for her page to get approved and she’d been widely covered for her VS Fashion Show and fashion week jobs like opening Altuzzara. Aas doesn’t even meet scratch the surface of that significant coverage but I’m wrong for pointing it out? *So what should be done about Draft:Laragh McCann? A model who, like Aas, has a NYMag profile indicating that she was also a Prada exclusive in her career, debuted at Louis Vuitton, had a Valentino campaign, etc. I quickly realized upon drafting it that she would not meet GNG but she would obviously meet NMODEL. The administrator declined it because in her view there is “no evidence of notability” even though there are 5 sources given on her modeling and film work. I contacted her and she said “GNG outweighs subject specific guidelines”. Exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time!!!
I sure did, because I believe his understanding of policy is very, very much needed here for this anomaly. He perfectly explained it over at the AfD for Carrie Salmon (which I nominated 6 days after this). I didn’t ask him for votes, but for comment.Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that what you posted there was a violation of WP:CANVASS, being about as far from neutral as it's possible to get and with the target clearly being picked bacause you thought that that editor would agree with your position. As I said, I haven't looked into notability so am neutral when it comes to keeping or deleting this, but I can see that by your canvassing you have poisoned the water to the extent that it will now be difficult to come to a consensus to delete this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn’t know WP:CANVASS was a thing, to be honest, so I’ll admit that I was ignorant in that sense. But I didn’t ask him to come here to agree with me. I asked him to explain the policy regarding notability for models, which is not about what I agree with but how it’s applied to all models. Whether the article is kept or deleted, notability for models regarding directories will have been changed henceforth because expample after example has shown that adminstrators (not involved with this particular AfD but on previous declinations of article creations) do not see models.com or directories as reliable sources, and that notability can’t be derived from mere mention. So that has made it quite confusing how this should be handled given that some think that directories give notability and improve article quality. That’s the standpoint I have been operating from since the jump. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” This has precisely been my intention behind having done it! I have no control over what people say or if / how they vote. Hell, he may even disagree with me. We just need to sort this NMODEL policy out since we all seem to have divergent understandings on how it correlates with GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow. Canvassing. Calling for an RfC on the article's talk page while this article's nomination is still being discussed. Walls and walls of text. All because the voting hasn't gone your way. I was actually entirely finished with this discussion until I read the "“there’s a “we should keep it because she’s Estonian” bias over there by some editors as well” comment on the page you were canvassing. Are you kidding me? I wonder who that is directed at? Where in this discussion anywhere have I (or, anyone) stated this article should be kept because she happens to be Estonian (as I am)? There are plenty of crappy articles and stubs on Estonians who have little or tenuous notability that I would happily see go. You have made this accusation up whole cloth. "This isn't personal." Obviously, it is; you are seething that some of the articles you created for submission were declined. You even brought it up in the RfC you created. Now, you are just being spiteful and an obstructionist. As I already told you initially, I am not invested in this article. Whether it stays or goes, that's fine. But in all politeness, your behavior has been quite outrageous. Look, things don't always go your way. Accept it instead of lashing out. ExRat (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ExRat: I do not care what “goes my way” on the Internet. When I say it’s not personal, it’s just that. I have no human emotion staked in what happens this certain article or any. But what I cannot stand for is every rule about general notability being torn up.
I called for an RfC specifically because going forth with ALL model articles there is a dire need of clarity on how directories contribute to notability or quality and general notability despite many many administrators stating otherwise. If this article is kept because NMODEL supercedes general notability that has to be applied to EVERY model’s article. The same rationale you have for keeping this article is the same rationale that gets model articles declined or deleted no matter who created it. I am not seething that articles I’ve created had been—evidently they were already created for me to have shown the history. I use the adminstrator comments on those to inform how I contribute in the future. And for what it’s worth... none have the 65 articles I have created so far have even come into the AfD space, so I must be following these policies right somehow. Now if you actually read what I said, I’m pointing out that administrators said that with the sources of models.com, the same ones used to justify keeping this article despite no signifcant coverage, notability is not met. And those other 3 pages which weren’t even my creation, I simply fixed them to be resubmitted and created, said the same thing. I legitimately wanted to know if NMODEL > GNG despite adminsitrator comments, then an article like Draft:Laragh McCann should be approved in that case. She has an NYMag profile after all... isn’t that what we’re going by here? (Whether it’s approved or not, I don’t care.)
Let it be known that I also have no feelings in who votes keep or delete because that’s everyone’s own choice. What I’m pointing out is the abject hypocrisy of saying NMODEL > GNG with no significant coverage from independent reliable sources when that is not the case any where else. I canvassed his page because he understands the NMODEL policy clear as day and I think he should expound on it in a situation like this. My comment about Estonian bias was flippant but when this article has “improved” in quality in the scope of WikiProject Estonia simply because of the deemed—unreliable models.com source, I presumed.
If I was “lashing out” about I would just blank pages but that’s not what we do here. We propose deletion based on policies. It’s just unfortunate that my ENTP personality makes me have to go back and forth bringing facts. Take care. Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines, and in this case there's not enough independent coverage to be able to write a neutral article that's not a permastub. (Disclosure: Trillfendi did mention this discussion on my talk page). However, I don't think that her behavior violates canvassing and request that commentators above assume good faith. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‼️ And I just want to say before anybody puts their foot on my neck and types me a black eye that I was on Buidhe’s talk page on Saturday about her review of Draft:Laragh McCann and how to approach it with regard to other people’s opinions on model notability vs. GNG here. I was not in any way there for canvassing like I did on Bearcat’s talk. I just wanted to be fair and tell her I had included her opinion in my previous comments.Trillfendi (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: The very first part of WP:N clearly says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes either GNG or one of the specified SNGs. Saying "GNG supersedes the subject-specific guidelines" does not accurately reflect WP:N. In this case, the notability issue is settled by passing NMODEL, independent of passing or not passing WP:GNG. Your point about the possibility of a permastub is obviously a reasonable thing to bring up, but that falls under WP:PAGEDECIDE, a separate section of WP:N that discusses what to do if a presumed notable subject might only ever be a permastub. Clearly worth discussing! But it has no bearing on the GNG vs. SNG notability issue, at least how WP:N is currently written. Bakazaka (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bakazaka: Tbh, I am not convinced that she meets the SNG either. NMODEL redirects to NENTERTAINER, which states that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is pretty subjective. If her role is all that significant, how come there's no RS discussing it? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 09:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Since I haven't argued for her passing NMODEL, and instead have simply accepted the nominator's assessment of NMODEL in good faith (hence my Speedy Keep !vote above), I'm not sure what to tell you. Scrolling up, there is some discussion of Prada shows and so forth that might inform your question. Bakazaka (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ENTERTAINER also has the options of notability because the person "has a large fan base or a significant cult following", and/or because the person "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Both of those, obviously, are criteria that a model can easily meet even if having acting roles isn't normally on the menu for most models. Whether they're met here or not, I can't say — but by singling out the ENTERTAINER criterion that clearly only applies to actors as the be-all and end-all of notability over the ones that leave room for non-actors, you're making it sound like a model has to cross over into acting before she can satisfy NMODEL, which is very definitely not the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You have obviously done nothing wrong, but Trillfendi's messages to Bearcat and you clearly violated WP:CANVASS as the recipients were chosen on the basis that they had agreed with her position before. The message to Bearcat was sent in ignorance of WP:CANVASS, but the message to you was sent after I had pointed out that this was unacceptable behaviour. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: When I notified the people of the first RfC (ubi supra), was I not barked at for even doing an RfC during an AfD? 🤔 I only did the second RfC at the advice of Buidhe’s comment, since it’s now an issue that concerns fashion-related articles (not what I intended this to become but here we are). Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: It would be really good if you could take this less personally. Your "Estonian" comments when you canvassed @Bearcat: are really over the top. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: Sarcasm doesn’t translate in print. Like I explained earlier, it was a flippant remark. I wasn’t serious. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of notability WP:N: "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" [such as NMODEL]. Aas is a notable model, who made a smashing debut in 2009 and now, almost a decade later, is still doing top-level modeling and getting name-tagged in articles about other things. As for coverage in independent sources, the article links to interviews with Aas in Interview (magazine) and The New York Times Style Magazine. Vogue in 2012 mentions her as "many now-famous names." Fashionista includes her as one of the "top fashion models of 2012." Vogue Italy calls her "The Estonian model that has enchanted designers." The sole criterion for notability of a model should not be the existence of lengthy in-depth interviews, if only because (in the interviews of Aas that we have) she is not very articulate. It deprives our readers of a useful resource if we delete articles about notable people they might want to learn more about. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you go again with the “smashing debut” partisan yet for some reason, the only source given for jobs is models.com who doesn’t even bother to link to actual sources, and slideshow images). That’s what I’m talking about. If the debut was as smashing as you say, more reliable sources would be out there. You know who’s several decades into her career and got a Vogue cover last year? Debra Shaw. But she doesn’t even have an article currently. Chinese model Jing Wen, who is also best known for her Prada work (including being in the Prada show just two days ago) had a breakout so successful that American Vogue almost immediately started calling her a top model, yet the comments initially declining the drafts said: “Establishing notability requires significant coverage. In its current state, this submission would likely be deleted because it consists mostly of promotional material. There is an overwhelming list of cites to the model's agency. The other coverage seems to be brief mentions and publicity, such as the paragraph in the cbsnews cite. None of this contributes to notability.” This is the standard I abide by. How is Aas’s article any different from that? When I proposed deletion, it looked like this. 2 sentences for career including an obsolete models.com link and for some reason someone decided it’s relevant to put who her friends are in the career section. Almost 0 reliable sources. You can’t tell me that met NMODEL just because it says she did a smattering of jobs. You can’t reference a model’s agency for career highlights and say that’s notability or improving the article-she’s employed by them. Yet that’s all people seem to come up with for verifying covers and what not, agencies and directories. If you want to see what an actual, substantial New York Times interview / profile with models looks like it’s something like this. It’s not from the Sunday T magazine asking “what time do you get up in the morning?” Fashionista is a blog, for God’s sake. And it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether she’s articulate, things shouldn’t be different for her than other articles. Trillfendi (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether this article is kept or not will be decided by 1) Wikipedia policy and 2) the existence of RS that demonstrate her notability according to NMODEL. If a topic is notable, as demonstrated by RS, it deserves an article. This AfD has ZERO connection to your rejected articles about models you prefer to KA. Please take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and note particularly WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. This article now has many RS supporting the career information of KA. Your statement above "the only source given for jobs is models.com" is just patently false. I am adding more RS about her debut, since you apparently doubt that it happened or that it was noteworthy. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: What hypocrisy. Other stuff exists and arguments to avoid are an ESSAY not a policy. “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.” This isn’t about models I “prefer” but obviously you feel that way because you keep talking about her “smashing debut” (who talks like that?) with blithe un-neutrality. This is about the consistency of standards applied to every model. And the pages were created when I rectified the issues commented; that’s what I’m pointing out if you use your reading comprehension. You can check them out if you want. Some of the pages were started by other editors anyway. It’s not about the history of the article but fact that notability had to be evidenced with significant coverage from reliable sources no matter what job a model does. Now what is patently false about the fact that the ONLY citations given for the sentence “Aas has also appeared in Polish,[23] Mexican,[13] German,[24] Chinese,[25] Russian,[26] Japanese[27] and Italian editions of Vogue.[28]” and the Vogue Portugal cover is indeed models.com? Patently goddamn true. See for yourself. Trillfendi (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trillfendi: I agree that notability must be established by RS. Where we disagree is this: you say that even if a model passes NMODEL (based on reliable sources, we both agree) then the model must also meet GNG to have an article. Wikipedia policy disagrees with you there and so do I. I think KA is notable according to Wikipedia policy because her career (NMODEL) can be documented using RS such as The Cut, NY Magazine, Interview Magazine, Vogue, Vogue Italia, and others. I am a "partisan" only in the sense of arguing for the article to be kept as notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not “Wikipedia policy” that disagrees with me, it’s you. The prevailing belief among lots of editors on this website is that just having jobs isn’t enough, there has to be independent significant coverage (GNG) in tandem with it. Until this AfD came along it was an uncontroversial norm. I’m sure you didn’t know this girl even existed until you decided you just wanted to turn this into one-upmanship. In your mind, my opinion is invalid because you think I’m wrong and I should be silent. Or somehow, this is about my “preference” (if you really care, I love a raven-haired beauty), and I shouldn’t dare look for solutions to a gaping dissonance. After making approximately 59 articles so far about fashion models, one could surmise I’m learned on the subject by now. When someone has to grasp for straws (Lexposure.net is not a real thing.) and still can’t find the majority of her work without resorting to slide shows and directories, something doesn’t add up. And once again, NY Magazine’s defunct model profile pages have nothing to do with notability, that’s probably why they don’t even do it anymore. If that were true, go make an article for the hundreds of models in that outdated database that still labels Cara Delevigne as a newcomer. Trillfendi (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: Wikipedia policy trumps "belief among lots of editors" until and unless those editors change our policy. Wikipedia policy reflects the decision of many editors on how our encyclopedia should be run. For example, the part of WP:N you disagree with, that "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." (quoting Wikipedia:N as of January 14, 2009 was already Wikipedia policy a decade ago and has not been changed, despite any local consensus to ignore it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.” That is what “a lot of editors” completely unrelated to this AfD abide by for every subject but YOU think NMODEL is exempt from that just because of the brands they work for. Appearance is not notability. You think being remotely mentioned in a list by Vogue is being profiled by Vogue (it’s not...), you think a compilation of runway slideshows is a Vogue editorial (it’s not...), you think 10 question random questions by T like “What’s on your iPod Shuffle?“ is equivalent to being profiled by the New York Times (meanwhile the actual New York Times give more career synopsis to newbies). An article can’t stand on bare bones. When it comes down to finding sources for her work all that y’all seem to find is modeling agencies, random blogs, and models.com. Whereas real magazines are supposed to have that information. Y’all even tried to throw a manufactured Twitter controversy in there. Trillfendi (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HouseOfChange: "Presumed to be notable" is not the same as actually notable. How is one supposed to write a neutral, non-stub wikipedia article without significant coverage in multiple sources? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 16:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree with WP:NRVE that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." "Significant attention" refers to attention from those qualified to judge if the achievement was notable or not, for example writers at Vogue, The Cut, NYT Style Magazine, etc. can judge if a model is noteworthy or not. "Significant attention" does not necessarily mean long stories and interviews (few professors would be wikinotable if NPROFESSOR didn't trump GNG.) We have many stub and otherwise imperfect articles about notable topics. WP:CONTN and WP:PAGEDECIDE both address those concerns of yours. Neither supports deleting an article about a notable subject. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with stubs. Many articles in traditional paper encyclopedias would be considered stubs in Wikipedia. And, anyway, the question of whether it is possible to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources about Kätlin Aas is answered by the fact that it has been done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no coincidence that her Estonian article et:Kätlin Aas is one sentence and absolutely unreferenced.Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, it really is. Have you seen the actual state of the entry for Karmen Pedaru at Estonian Wikipedia? I am Estonian and even I rarely edit on Estonian Wikipedia. Has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. Also, I see you have referred to the "manufactured Twitter" controversy. Postimees has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Estonia. Õhtuleht is the second largest newspaper in Estonia. Both WP:RS. Kroonika is also a very popular magazine (less reputable, more of a "gab mag", but still very popular). Gap Inc. publicly commented on the issue. Manufactured by whom? Also, I would tend to think, for a model, four Vogue covers and (at least) nine Vogue editorials counts as notable in the industry. Opening and closing a Prada show counts in the industry. You can quibble with the sources – they all flat out show the covers and editorials – so, you know she had them. In that profession, that certainly meets WP:N. Not all models of note become a Twiggy or a Naomi Campbell and can still be notable; their success is generally measured by their appearances on magazine covers and in editorials and in campaigns and on runways. They aren't all often known or notable for comprehensive details about their lives. You're arguing over a precedent, not this article. ExRat (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That has absolutely no relevance to this discussion, which is about whether we should keep this article on the English Wikipedia. There just doesn't happen to have been anyone at the Estonian Wikipedia, which, by the fact that there are orders of magnitude fewer people who understand Estonian than understand English, certainly has far fewer editors than the English Wikipedia, who has expanded the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 25 unreliable souces in this article by now. Take them out and you’re left with maybe 4 at the most that could be considered reliable which for no reason are formatted to be blurbs at the bottom to clog space and distract from the fact that the majority of the others are from unreliable sources. (The fact that “Lexposure.net” keeps being put in there when it was nothing more than a BLOG, not an actual magazine, yet being reference as such, is the kind of shit I’m talking about, but what do I know). Half of her work, for whatever reason, is not verifiable. For example, “models.com” is referenced for her Vogue covers yet the source given for two of them is Facebook for crying out loud!!! And for Portugal, nenhum resultado encontrado. It’s a catch-22. Trillfendi (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of those covers/editorials can be cited directly to the source magazines, which are reliable primary sources for their own content (just like books or TV episodes are reliable primary sources for their plot summaries on Wikipedia). Clearly the scanned images on models.com and similar sites provide a convenience for the reader, as not everyone has access to Vogue archives, and it's not exactly a controversial BLP claim at stake. But it's easy enough to meet the letter of the law by directly citing the issues in/on which she appeared, and leaving the readers to go find their own scans, or the Vogue Portugal photographer's website [29], or whatever. Bakazaka (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say it as if it’s VA records, not content supposed accessible on a magazine’s website. The problem is, the circulation of Vogues that aren’t the Big Four (American, British, Paris, and Italia and I’ll put Vogue China and Australia as honorable mentions) is so low that they’re almost irrelevant. Big Four Vogues get the most prestige therefore its models get the most coverage. Sara Grace Wallerstedt for example, her first cover was Vogue Italia. Of course that helped put her nascent career on the map for American Vogue to go all the way to her hometown for an editorial in their magazine. Regional Vogues aren’t on the same calibre, unfortunately, so no one besides models stans even know which cover is which. They don’t get the same publicity. If Wikipedia allowed social media as references it’d be a different case, people could just pull random Instagram posts from their account for things. The idea of “but she has a Vogue cover!” yet no reliable sources for 3/4 is ineffectual. Frankly, one is better off using a photographer’s website than “models.com” in a situation like that, but that’s probably not appropriate here. Trillfendi (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't entirely follow what you're saying, it sounds like you have a lot of thoughts about gradations of importance between different international editions of magazines. That would be a great thing to discuss on the RfC that you opened during this AfD (the 2nd RfC, not the 1st RfC), where some of the discussion currently is about proposing specific guidelines for NMODEL to help clarify these kinds of distinctions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several times over. (invited by bot to the RFC) Apparently it's accepted that she meets the SNG. Structurally in Wikipedia that's enough. But if it didn't, you'd need an unusually stringent application of GNG to reject passage under GNG. I spot checked about 10 of the references that were independent articles (not just listings) and, despite lack of in-depth coverage of her in those 10, all supported real-world notability. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say there’s lack of in-depth coverage. How is “stringent” to say the article should meet GNG? Still, from what people have tried to dig up from 6 feet under on Al Gore’s Internet, nothing goes beyond a single paragraph or even a sentence in several. You really believe that’s “enough”? In that case user Buidhe is right. This would always be a permanent stub unable to go any further. This is what I mean by we need ratification of an updated clearer level because there are many contradictions going on about this. Trillfendi (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: it appears that you have nominated this and other articles about models for deletion because some such articles that you created were deleted, and are looking for consistency in the application of rules. Such consistency does not exist in Wikipedia. If subjects nominated for deletion are clear-cut "keeps" or "deletes" then that will happen, but there is a large middle ground where the decision is based on the luck of the draw in who chooses to participate in the deletion discussion. I have seen many decisions that I strongly believe to be based on ignorance, but part of the wiki model is that we often have to let such things go rather than argue incessantly about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: You’re wrong—none of the pages I’ve created have ever been deleted. So that’s your ignorance. The only deletions were when I accidentally created a page when I meant to put it in the draft and requested it’s speedy deletion myself. That was Abolish ICE, approved months ago and another draft not submitted yet. All those other articles I referenced previously where drafts that have been approved long ago, even years. I simply took into account what the issues were and try to apply an even hand to every article. If anybody sees the need to propose deletion of any article I’ve created, no one is stopping them. I would expect them to go based on what they believe about it and let others put their input in. Trillfendi (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was ignorant. My advice, and it is only advice rather than any sort of argument against your position, is to stop investing so much time and energy into something as trivial as getting a Wikipedia article about a model who may or may not be notable deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What started as a simple acknowledgement that though she did Prada, she doesn’t have independent significant coverage, somehow turned into Lord of the Flies and shoot the messenger. I didn’t take it there. The outcome of it doesn’t affect me either way. This isn’t a crusade. If it was up to me this process would have been done quickly but I started the AfD so I might as well see it through. And then it’s on to the next one. I just can’t stand with hypocrisy, the same principles have to be applied everywhere. Regardless of it all, something has to change going forth. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some might say it is hypocritical that an editor who has stated unequivocally (over and over) in this discussion that this article has cited models.com as a source, but has used models.com as a source in nearly every article they have created about fashion models, as well as online boutiques, blogs, and the model's agencies as references – all things you have also taken issue with in this discussion. Just out of curiosity (though admittedly, it has no bearing on this nomination), how does an example article you created such as Julia Banaś compare to this article? Seems by your standards, that article should be up for deletion. Ticks everything you complained about in this nomination: models.com, blogs, boutiques, silly & fluffy "10 questions with...", and then random pictures with little to no coverage other than an image. Peculiar. ExRat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wow! revisiting afds that are over a week old, have just read this epic afd (over 8th words compared to around 550 in the article), as it is quite long i thought i would summarise it: 3 "deleters" (including the nominator), 7 "keepers", 2 neutral, nominator/deleters suggests Aas may be notable under WP:NMODEL but not enough indepth/significant WP:RS coverage, keepers say Aas meets WP:NMODEL (and some WP:GNG as well) and the coverage in the article is okay to use, all in all its pretty even, i reckon this article will be kept either outright ("keepers" may just have it on the sng, and not just because there are more of them) or as no consensus because there is good reasoning on both sides (btw, if any editors think i have got it wrong please send me a trout or two:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment. Just a wish to see this closed a.s.a.p. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no rationale for deletion presented. Even if the nom (who has less than 50 total edits) makes claims about political bias in the media that are correct, it would still be a notable topic. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump administration family separation policy[edit]

Trump administration family separation policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a non-existing policy. The whole article is based on false statements in "reputable news sources" and misunderstandings of a rather complex topic. Due to the enormous political polarization in the U.S. news media, many of the large news organizations ended up prioritizing a blame game for the humanitarian crisis at the border and creating political narratives rather than correctly and truthfully reporting the cause of the family separations. The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy did not contain one word about separating families. The quote from Jeff Session in this article relating to this, is used to falsely imply that the Zero Tolerance Policy was responsible, but if you read the quote then the last part of it reveals the ACTUAL cause of the separations: "If you cross the border unlawfully ... then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute you. ... If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as REQUIRED BY LAW."

The only cause of those family separations was a 2016 court ruling on the Flores Settlement(which partly reversed a 2015 ruling). No policy of the Trump administration changed anything in this regard. The executive order that Trump issued that finally solved this crisis did NOT reverse, remove or change the Zero Tolerance Policy in any way. It is still fully effective. The executive order only directed the Attorney General to request with the U.S. District Court to change the Flores settlement. Here is that relevant section from the executive order:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.[1]

For more background on this issue, I recommend reading the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy, and reading the Flores Settlement(originally from 1997), and all the subsequent revisions of it, especially the 2015 court ruling and the 2016 part reversal of the 2015 court ruling. This article has many "reputable" sources, but is nonetheless false and biased propaganda from the title to large parts of the text. I strongly recommend it be deleted. BreakingZews (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484300/read-trump-executive-order-family-separation-immigration-full-text
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:GNG, obviously. If the nom believes that the name of the article is wrong, then the process for this is WP:RM, not AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep: Extensively covered. One of the big political issues of 2018 in the largest Western democracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: While the subject matter is notable, I question whether the title is appropriate, and the content also reads in a manner more similar to a propaganda piece WP:SOAP than a suitable entry in an encyclopedia, with an almost exclusive focus on one side of the issue - and while WP:FALSEBALANCE is a thing, I do not believe it applies here, given that the contrary view is not WP:FRINGE. With that said, I also suspect that this deletion proposal is motivated by ideology, abet in the opposite direction, given the interest in an outright delete and no interest in repairing the article. As such, my position is a weak delete, with the intent of such a deletion being that a clean slate is created for a new article covering this topic, but with a neutral point of view and a more accurate title - WP:STARTOVER. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the U.S. President and numerous high-level members of his administration push falsehoods and WP:FRINGE theories, this doesn't suddenly make those views non-fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not, but the simple fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world holds a view generally suggests it is not fringe, particularly on topics like this where the validity of a view cannot be proven or disproven. Equally importantly, this view is not fringe amongst the general American Population; iirc 25% of said group supports it. NoCOBOL (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may need a new title, but the subject is notable QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frankly, I question your judgement. Clearly you have an agenda here. If you don’t think the article is accurate then take your qualms to the talk page to improve it! Trillfendi (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination is frivolous. Neutralitytalk 16:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much more than just the name of the article is wrong. Almost the entire article is based on pure political propaganda WP:SOAP. This article is simply amplifying one of the most extensively propagated falsehoods I have ever seen in the U.S. media. Wikipedia should be about presenting factual information, not just presenting false media reports with obvious political bias as truth. There was no Trump administration family separation policy. The family separations were a direct consequence of the court rulings on the Flores settlement. Those are the facts, still the article is entirely based around this incorrect notion that the family separations were a result of a Trump policy. BreakingZews (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe that all you want, but yours are alternative facts. The Trump policy is not a continuation of Obama policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This appears to be a POV nomination arguing that Trump has the same "family separation policy" as Obama. He doesn't. (I know that source is the Washington Post, and therefore Trump defenders can yell "FAKE NEWS!" all they want to ignore it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and widely discussed in reliable sources. Our job is to summarize neutrally what the full range of reliable sources say. Rejecting reliable sources that come to conclusions that some editors do not like for political reasons is contrary to the policies and guidelines of this enyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trump had no policy of separating families, and I have not said anything about Obama or his policies. The facts are easily available without the political distortion in the heavily polarized U.S. media, by accessing the documents involved directly. Read the Zero Tolerance Policy, it does not contain a single word about separating families, and read the 2015 and 2016 court rulings on the Flores settlement. The 2015 ruling ordered that both "accompanied children" and their mother/parents should not be held in detention, while the 2016 ruling partly reversed the 2015 ruling in such a way that it did not cover the children's parents. Meaning that applying the law ment that the parents should be prosecuted and detained while the children could not be detained due to the 2016 ruling. That 2016 ruling is the cause of increase in family separations after Trump became President. Those are the facts. There has never been any Trump policy of separating families, and if you contest that, then please point to that policy and the wording that orders the separation of children from their families. It doesn't exist. The Trump administration does have a policy of following the law, including the rulings on the Flores settlement. BreakingZews (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was an enormous misinformation campaign on this issue in the U.S. media, including(or even especially) in what often has been considered "reliable sources", WA PO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and many others. Wikipedia should not be amplifying political propaganda. The Zero Tolerance Policy simply ment that illegal immigrants that (obviously) break the law by entering the country unlawfully should be prosecuted according to the law, no exceptions. The Flores settlement was the only reason that the children and parents could not be kept together when the parents were detained. Here is a link to the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement Flores Settlement 2016 ruling And here is a link to the Jeff Sessions memo on Zero Tolerance Policy: Zero Tolerance Policy BreakingZews (talk) 21:28, 10 January 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) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Assaraf[edit]

John Assaraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Forbes and Entrepreneur pieces are from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable author and actor. I cant see any reliable sources. AD Talk 07:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds promotional more than anything and if his company was so special it'd probably already have an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only notable claim is that he appeared as an Entrepreneur in The Secret documentary. The claims of "behavior expert" and "brain research and brain retraining" seem to be a case of WP:PUFF, considering that more recent, albeit (primary) sources state that he is not a medical doctor or research scientist. Article appears promotional. Sadsignal (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello everyone. I created this page because I found his books interesting and heard him on podcasts, also from The Secret. I was surprised there wasn't a page already. I am keen on self-help and self-improvement material and based this entry on those of other author/speakers such as Tony Gaskins and Tim Hurson, who I didn't think were as notable. Please advise if I can make this better. I'm new to this and the process is fascinating. You guys know best. GLingham (Talk) 10:14, 11 January 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 procedural close. The nominator hasn't made it clear what they are arguing for here, hasn't responded when questioned here, and have removed the AfD notice by redirecting the page after opening this discussion, and with nobody else arguing for any particular action here, there is no basis for keeping this open. Michig (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Can See Your Voice (Philippines season 2)[edit]

I Can See Your Voice (Philippines season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Season 2" article was already merged with Season 1. Hiwilms (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 09:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalric Romance (2000 film)[edit]

Chivalric Romance (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Russian actors such as Sergey Bezrukov and Vasili Lanovoy playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable film from notable film studios with notable Russian Actors. For a non-english movie this old, sources are hard to find online, but we cannot assume it did not have received notable coverage in Russian at the time without checking in the newspapers from the time period.Emass100 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 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) 20:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ring-Jarvi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ross Ring-Jarvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A LinkedIn bio and stats pages do not count as sources towards meeting GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the prior AfD had a few other sources, some of which I can't link to now, but there is at least this one from Norway plus the Free Press articles Path slopu produced. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's yet to be any source produced that isn't a stat page or routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE, either now or in the prior AfD. Beyond that, the subject played Division III college hockey, a single season in Norway, a single season in the mid-minors, and has to be one of the most marginal hockey players ever to survive an AfD in the first place. Ravenswing 20:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable hockey player / career. Canada Hky (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any sources that go far enough to meet WP:GNG. Only stats or routine. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 11 January 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) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crosty[edit]

Paul Crosty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls just short of the 200 game mark. Cannot find significant coverage on him either regarding hockey. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Minor-leaguer with unheralded and ephemeral career. Ravenswing 20:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor league player with no hockey related accomplishments or significant coverage. Canada Hky (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shop LC[edit]

Shop LC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

created by a blocked user BBSTOP (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have tagged the page for speedy deletion so there's no need to bring this to AfD. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have pulled the speedy, as I've kept a watch on this page since the first nom and deletion for it under its former Liquidation Channel name (and as a constant contributor, a notice is required to my talk page; you didn't do that). Since then I've kept constant control of the page to make sure the folks at Vaibhav Global and their accounts aren't turning it into an outright WP:ADVERT, and pretty much overwrote most of the blocked user's edits, so it's disqualified from SD under those grounds. It's a shopping network, but it has nearly national cable and satellite coverage and plenty of sourcing in the basic sense. And I always get suspicious of accounts that just arise out of nowhere and their first move is to laser-target certain pages for deletion; please declare any connections you may have for or against the subject of these pages. Nate • (chatter) 07:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shop LC and Vaibhav Global both are the same shopping network and created by the blocked users User:Gauravsinghgehlot and User:HarjinderSB. Please attention both the users are the sock puppetry of User:Vkdutta4u. BBSTOP (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
**sock puppets ―Abelmoschus Esculentus
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry BBSTOP (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment First, can't vote! twice in an AfD. Second, I overwrote their promotional junk as soon as the page was reposted, so it's disqualified from SD. Third, Gauravsinghgehlot never edited this page specifically. Please state a policy-based reason for deletion besides removing banned user contribs which were addressed already three years back and declare any conflicts.. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you saying Gauravsinghgehlot never edited this page but he is the banned user and sock puppet of user:Vkdutta4u. and as per my understanding a sock puppet user is that who handles multiple accounts. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. and it clearly proves that both the pages Vaibhav Global and Shop LC are created by the same user user:Vkdutta4u who is banned and have a close connection with the company. BBSTOP (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Once again, you cannot vote for your deletion. Stop adding "delete" to further comments. And as I will reiterate again, as soon as I saw their promotional edits, I removed them and re-wrote the page in full to be as neutral as possible (I expected the re-creation and kept the page on my watchlist after the first deletion, specifically to make sure their edits didn't stick). Their original content is all but gone from this page. G5 can't be used three years after the page was created; multiple users have already all but obliterated the original PROMO tone of this page. Nate • (chatter) 07:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per the strong rationale presented by Squeamish Ossifrage. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American generals and admirals[edit]

List of Jewish American generals and admirals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article doesn't meant the requirements of WP:LISTN - namely, there are no notable sources discussing the group as a set. NoCOBOL (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list cruft. Trillfendi (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIR actually uses "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" as the canonical example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, which is exactly what we have here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am inclined to think that LISTN is a relevant guideline here, to judge whether this particular grouping is notable. This list would seem to be an arbitrary subset of Category:American Jews in the military (which itself may or may not pass WP:OCAT, I don't know), but that would also suggest that a list that doesn't just focus on certain officer ranks would avoid that issue. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage's point about this non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. --Lockley (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic was the subject of an exhibition at Florida Atlantic University—documented a few different places, e.g. here. This article available from the Times of Israel concerns representation of Jews in the military, including among flag officers, and how that has interacted with anti-Semitism in the American military. This article from Encyclopedia Judaica also places great emphasis on Jewish flag officers toward understanding the place of Jews in the American military. (It also notes how the treatment of Jewish flag officers is indicative of the broader place of Jews within the military—see Fascist Italy's firing of its Jewish flag officers in 1938.) So this topic has received sufficient coverage to be notable, in my view. If my view does not prevail, I would be grateful if the closer would userfy the article into my userspace. I've been mining its redlinks for notable topics in recent weeks, and continued access to its contents and history would be helpful. Lagrange613 19:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one exhibit at a university does not justify an article. Also when people are following issues in Italy to justify having an article on Americans we clearly are not defining the scope well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In terms of whether the topic is notable, I certainly find sources for "Jewish generals", eg 'Lincoln's Jewish generals', Jewish World Review Feb. 16, 2001 [34]; 'Out Of Control', The New York Jewish Week, November 29, 2011 [35]; 'The Jews in the World War' (not just about generals, but gives the number of Jewish generals in each army, their names, positions, etc) The Jewish Veteran, Volumes 7-9, November 1938 [36]; 140 Jewish Marshals, Generals & Admirals by Eli Rubin, 1952 [37]; and it's a subject heading in the Library of Congress [38], [39] (although it doesn't seem to be used to catalogue books very accurately - The General : William Levine, citizen soldier and liberator comes up doing a search of everything for Jewish generals, but is not actually categorised under "Jewish generals" although clearly described as both Jewish and a general [40]). "Jewish admirals" brings up fewer results, but given that it's the equivalent rank in the navy to the army and air force general, it can't really be left out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:54, 17 January 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 Sergey Zhukov. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Territoriya[edit]

Territoriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable Sergey Zhukov's musical album.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 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. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Socotra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Geology of Socotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is not sourced not notible and most importantly false and provides a lot of unsourced biased materials SharabSalam (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I don’t really understand why this is at AfD. The topic is notable, the content is at least partially sourced (additional sources would be good). If the issue is that some of the content is incorrect then surely the answer is to correct it, providing sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: As well as the two sources in the article, a Google Books search (WP:BEFORE?) shows further coverage (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, etc.) indicating topic notability per WP:GEOLAND. (It may be that the article would be better merged into Socotra however.) I agree with Mccapra that the basis for this nomination is unclear: better to use normal editing to flag/verify any contentious content. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, i do not know why the nominator, prior to this afd, removed a factual referenced statement, that Socotra is part of the Somali Plate (possibly to reinforce their incorrect nomination words that "The article is not sourced"), as it is relevant, i have reinstated it to the article's lead. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is full of unsourced and a hell of biased pov. Statements that aren't sourced will be deleted without questioning for the source because they are false SharabSalam (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nothing about this article is a cause for deletion. Rather, this appears to be a continuation of the nominator's efforts to remove factual, sourced information from the article for, I suspect, nationalist reasons. I've reviewed at least one of the sources, confirmed the accuracy of the removed content, and restored a previous version of the article (while cleaning up some of the text and making the citations explicit and inline). There's actually quite a bit of room for expansion here, as other sources exist that would provide both more details and better context. But that's clearly not a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Current article is verifibly sourced and a quick search of refseek, an academic search engine, returns quite a few more articles on "Geology of Socotra" by scientific, peer reviewed journals which can be added to the article. I can't add them today but should be able to in the next few days. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    comment reply to @Aurornisxui, Squeamish Ossifrage, and Coolabahapple: Here is a list of there of the best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non independent place, thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD isn't the place to talk about merging, that would be WP:MERGE. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When I firstly nominated this article for deletion there were only two references in this large article and it had a lot of WP:OR and WP:POV issues also the fact that article like this shouldn't exist in the first place as a saperated article now things has changed and there are actual sourced materials in this article so I think they should be merged into Socotra article and that wasn't possible when the article was only 1-2 references.SharabSalam (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. No valid rationale presented. The nominator's first edit to the article (which was reverted) shows that they have a problem with the name Somali plate. The AfD nom came straight after. Since this is factual, I can only surmise that the nom's issue is political, in not wanting Socotra associated with Somalia. Wikipedia does not care about such sensitivities, and it is being disruptive to try and purge it regardless of what is clearly found in sources. So someone please close this and stop AfD effort being wasted on it. SpinningSpark 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spinningspark: There is no political reason behind the nomination!! Stop assuming bad faith. The only reason is that the article was not sourced and most of it was POV plus as I said here is a list of three best islands in the world according to google: Bali, Santorini, Maui do we have a saperated geology article of any of these Island(and this applies to any non independent Island article in Wikipedia)? Actually there is no article for a geology of a non independent place. I wonder why there is an odd case on Socotra article? why can't it be in one article? if this article passed afd discussion I will make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place!!! The article when I nominated to deletion was full of WP:OR and WP:POV issues and also the user who created the article has a history of creating geology articles and lot of them are getting nominated for deletion [41]
    in fact the user was also warned about this issue in his talk page way before I even discovered this page by another user. you seem not to care about what is going on and what is happening just pointing immediately your finger to me saying I hold the a point of view.

    SharabSalam (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC); added another reply SharabSalam (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything you have said there is either false or meaningless:
    • The article was not unsourced (at least, not completely unsourced) when you nominated it, as has already been pointed out to you, so please stop making that allegation.
    • Nobody is agreeing with you that the article is POV, your deletions from the article make no sense and have largely been restored. You eiter need to desist with that allegation, or explain what POV is being promoted by the use of "Somali plate".
    • What google thinks are the "three best islands" is utterly irrelevant, and I've no idea how you extracted that from google. As usual, you provide no link or evidence. Whether or not an island is independent is not relevant. Our criteria for inclusion of a subject are at WP:GNG, and if a subject meets it, it can have an article. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, or doesn't exist. Wikipedia is not finished so those kinds of arguments have no validity at AfD.
    • On your threat to "make tons of articles about geology of any non-independent place", normally, I would say yes, why not, if they can be sourced, go ahead. But you so clearly do not know what you are doing that I would strongly discourage that.
    • I'm not seeing any of the user's other geology articles up for deletion as you claim. Linking to the user's contributions log is useless. I checked about a dozen of them and they are all still up with no nomination. Please use diffs for claims like that, or link directly to the AfDs.
    • The user has not been warned. At least, they have not been warned for creating geology articles. Again, please use diffs for claims like that. Far from being warned, the user should be congratulated for creating so many geology articles for Wikipedia.
    To continue to raise points that other's have already shown you are incorrect shows that you have a very bad case of WP:IDHT. SpinningSpark 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with that statement about Somalia and I am going to say this once and for all hoping you would understand and never mention this again; if you repeated again your accusations I am going to report this to other administers. Stop assuming bad faith!!!!!! Okay? Secondly I said I am against creating an independent article about Socotra when it can easily be merage with no problem to Socotra article in geology section. And I might also need to repeat saying that when I firstly nominated this article for deletion it was only 1-2 source and it was larger than this and full of WP:POV issues like Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that that I couldn't find source of and was likely to be original research. The reason why Im repeating this is because your ignored all of what I said and started talking about Somalia WTH IS WRONG WITH YOU? I have no problem with the Somalia thing and I deleted once because the IP who added it put a reference not an online reference and also he put it in Socotra article and that was suspicious for me. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the Somali plate again because you mentioned POV again and that was the only issue you had raised prior to nomination for deletion. I accept that you no longer dispute this, which begs the question why you are persisting with this deletion nomination. You now say a problem is the article said "Socotra is initially located in Oman or something like that". What it actually said was "the island is geologically more closely related to the geology of Oman." This was cited (in a ref you deleted). You justified this above saying it was "suspicious" because the "reference not an online reference". Deleting references because you cannot read them is an outrageously disruptive thing to do, especially when the source is a high quality one from a scholarly journal – see Wikipedia:Offline sources for more information. Just for your information, here is a book source that plainly says Socrotra was rifted from Oman. You seem to be equating unsourced information (or even worse information that is in sources you can't read) with POV. This is not correct, these are two different issues. Unsourced does not mean it is unsourcable. Unsourced information is dealt with in the first instance by asking the editor concerned, raising the issue on the talk page, or by adding a citation needed tag. Unless it is obviously, or highly likely, wrong, the first move should rarely be removal. It certainly shouldn't be nomination of the page for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad examples; The first one is a country the second one is created by the same user who is spamming articles. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the Isle of Wight nor Skye are countries, and neither was created by User:Zircon 2. SpinningSpark 23:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also bad examples these are states and territories that were independent. Anyway I will create tons of articles and I have already started writing articles about tons and tons of islands and let's see if that's going to pass--SharabSalam (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can create well-sourced, tightly-focused geology articles, I don't see a problem with that. If you're intending to just mass-produce stubs to prove a point, I don't think you'll find the ultimate result particularly satisfying. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep - There is no reason this article needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, "best islands in the world according to google"? this probably relates to the most searched/most popular, anyway, everybody knows that tassie (Go, the apple isle!) is the best island in the world ... excuse me coola is your pov showing? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think we have reached WP:BLUD. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Apparently everybody is against the nomination and it doesn't seem that it's going to be deleted. I have a different opinion about this article and I think I might be wrong. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 12 January 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) 19:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Jennings (musician)[edit]

    Paul Jennings (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Poorly sourced, promotional BLP that includes unsubstantiated claims of reviews (for which I can find no evidence of existence), appearances, and performances with notable bands. The main contributors are two SPA's (DrumDivot and Nuthousecat), and an IP who claims to be the subject has also made a substantial edit that added some promotional fluff while removing allegedly false information. (In his only edit, a user named Cajonman also attempted to add promotional text about Jennings' website, playcajon.org.) No proper claim to WP:MUSICBIO (appearances in TED conferences don't seem to count) and no significant coverage found about him or playcajon.org. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth reliable sources found: much of the "History" section is copyvio from the subject's website. The reviews in the New York Times, Boston Globe and Globe and Mail are just passing mentions of Mr. Jennings playing as a backing musician for the dancer James Devine [42], [43], [44]... this show was also the "sell-out run on Broadway" mentioned in the article, so none of these reviews are about Mr. Jennings himself. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG at the moment. Maybe later. --Mhhossein talk 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgi Kulikov (actor)[edit]

    Georgi Kulikov (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (actor) Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After looking at the Russian wiki page I am going to go with keep, there are two honours in his infobox and he has done a fair amount of work. WP:BEFORE anyone!? Govvy (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The Russian version doesn’t help its case as the source is a dead link. No reliable sources could be found.Trillfendi (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userify. Requires more updating with factual infoMgbo120 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A translation of Google search results for "Заслуженный артист РСФСР Куликов" (Honored Artist of the RSFSR Kulikov) make it pretty clear he was awarded that distinction in 1967, which meets some standard of reliable sources (in a foreign language) and notability (in former Soviet sphere, long ago and far away). That's enough for me, but I could see the opposite view. --Lockley (talk) 20:57, 16 January 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. Unfortunately, this debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice against renominating in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Samakkhi Prathet Thai[edit]

    Samakkhi Prathet Thai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    KPBS Public Media[edit]

    KPBS Public Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:ORG; the radio and TV stations are notable by themselves. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Valid disambiguation page of the organization's properties. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userify. Requires more updating. Not yet encyclopedic.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a parent organization for KPBS-TV and KPBS-FM. Some decisions common to both media outlets, like news programming, are better suited to be placed into the parent page. Mikus (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamergate (disambiguation)[edit]

    Gamergate (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only one article needs a hatnote to the other two, and it already has it. wumbolo ^^^ 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Three ambiguous articles, one of which is the WP:PTOPIC. A disambiguation page is preferred to a long hatnote. feminist (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It is one primary topic, one secondary topic and one topic with a different title which could be confused with this one. wumbolo ^^^ 06:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that GamersGate currently links to this disambiguation page. feminist (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent. The hatnote can be replaced with {{distinguish|Gamergate (biology)|Gamergate controversy}}. wumbolo ^^^ 11:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It's easier to only have to update one disambiguation page than to have to update two hatnotes. feminist (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • feminist has a point. It's only a matter of time before we also have "Gamergate (book)" and "Gamergate (documentary)". A disambig page is the best solution. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 10:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CRYSTAL is not the best solution. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Feminist. I also added another entry, an episode with a guest star plyaing a fictional character with the surname Gamergate, which is another valid entry. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A hatnote can easily suffice for this topic, there does not seem to be a need for a separate disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, GamersGate is not something that requires disambiguation, so you really only have the ant and the controversy and an extremely minor, crufty character. I can picture a dual hatnote like "This article is about the species of ant. For the controversy, see Gamergate controversy. Not to be confused with GamersGate."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - All relevant stuff to disambig. FOARP (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Clearly means more than a controversial topic surrounding gamers. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Only 1 reference and 35 characters listed. Anything relevant can be moved to other articles. Paper Luigi T • C 04:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:LISTN; any worthwhile content can be merged to the main article Spiderone 11:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article, so insisting on the notability of the characters as a group apart from the series is missing the point, if not nonsensical. Obviously the characters of a series need to be described in order to have comprehensive coverage of that series, so the only options are to keep as a stand-alone list or to merge to the series article, not to delete outright. It's clearly too long for The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy to incorporate it (even if the entire recurring or supporting characters sections were removed), so stand-alone it is. postdlf (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The page has room for improvement. Merging it with the main article would make that page run on too long and lack cohesion.Trillfendi (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. All this is sourced to a single book? That contains one passing mention of one of these characters? Maybe it's just me, but I see no claim to notability, and all this extensive text, laden with OR and fancruft, justified by that one cited source, seems ludicrous. --Lockley (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep The TV series is clearly notable, and this list of characters is too long to include in the article about the series. I have found some sources for the characters, though not, in my online searches, a complete list. This article 'Midway Battles Its Way into Retail with Release of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy(TM) Video Game; One of Cartoon Network's Top-Rated Shows Comes to Game Systems' on Business Wire [54] refers to 15 characters that appear in the videogame based on the series (it names Grim, Billy, Mandy, Hoss Delgado and Fred Fredburger). This review of the video game 'Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (Game Boy Advance) - Review' [55] also says you can choose one of 15 characters - apart from the 3 main ones, I think it only mentions Toadblatt. This article 'Designing Meaning with Multiple Media Sources: A Case Study of an Eight-Year-Old Student's Writing Processes' in Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 41, No. 4 (May, 2007), describes a child's writing and the teacher asking about where the idea for the characters came from (mentions the main characters and Mr Snuggles, Granny and Screamy Meamy). The book Dracula in Visual Media: Film, Television, Comic Book and Electronic Game Appearances, 1921–2010 [56] includes summaries of two episodes of Grim & Evil, the precursor of The Grim Adventures ..., and the characters in them, including Dracula, of course. There were also toys and figurines made, which are now collectable. I have not searched under the name of the series in other languages - that might well bring up other sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. There is consensus that this specific topic isn't notable. If anyone wants to develop this towards a merger into Crime in Vatican City, or into a new article about Catholicism and cannabis, I would be happy to provide a draft in userspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannabis in Vatican City[edit]

    Cannabis in Vatican City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article has six sources, but four are about the position of the Catholic Church (and Popes) on cannabis and one is about Italy. That leaves us with cannabis.info, which simply states that cannabis is illegal in Vatican City.

    Altogether this is not the significant coverage we need for WP:GNG. It's clear that some hard work has gone into the article, which covers Catholic positions on cannabis, but that's not the article subject. Speculation on arable land or the country's only pharmacy is not particularly encyclopedic. Most fundamentally for AfD, I cannot find any useful sources which demonstrate notability of the topic. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ClockC Abstain - I won't vote either way as its my article, but I wou like for like to point out that there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis. This case, as it always seems to be with me though recently, is sui generis as the Vatican City State is irrevocably tied to the Holy See per se and its history as the Papal States, and we'll the article is rather self explanatory....I see no reason why this would be deleted and it would be a sore disappointment. I believe it provides a great deal of info and use, for example a cheeky tourist who thinks he can circumvent being arrested for smoking weed in the Italian Republic by visiting the Vatican. Or dorks like me.-~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well indeed their histories are linked, but the matter of law and decree is just one small area. Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted, but this was the most obvious outlier to me. What the notable members of this series, such as Cannabis in the United Kingdom, have that this article does not is a history of substantial production and usage. Even some sub-stubs such as Cannabis in Réunion document substantial recreational and ritual use of the drug, whereas in Vatican City there's no evidence provided that anyone has ever used the substance there. (Though as you say, I'm sure there's been the occasional tourist who endeavours to smoke weed on her trip to the state.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I forgot to mention this article was also peer-reviewed by @KJP1:, whose good advice I admittedly haven't implemented yet out of sloth, but he seemed to approve of the concept, if this is worth anything.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Retitle Perhaps its time the redirect Catholicism and cannabis became its own article, and then when in a few years or whenever the article can be changed back to its current title? Thanks, and have aHappy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      L3X1,A merge would certainly be interesting, but the problem I thought about when I created the article is that the Vatican City State is just as sovereign as China is, and I think not treating it like other countries while acknowledging and connecting its special status violates NPOV.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Having articles "X in [country]" for only some values of [country] is not related to NPOV at all. It's related to GNG. For instance, contrast Scientology in Belgium with (non-existent, non-notable) Scientology in North Korea. The difference is that there is a substantial Scientology following in the former country, but not the latter. Trying to complete the series would be a fool's errand. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      What Bilorv said. Normally I see NPOV used as argument against this type of thing, but I agree it isn't the issue. I think for the current title, the article could only have the lede/lead portion, but if we rename it, the entire article would be appropriate. Thanks, and have aHappy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have any ideas what would be a good title for the entire subject of the article, as you think would fit?--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Catholicism and cannabis or Cannabis and Catholicism (whichever the MOS:TITLE people deem to be proper) or perhaps Catholic Views on Cannabis, but I feel one of the first two would be better, as it encompasses the current contents, A lead, dogma, and history. Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! fromL3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting, although if I would need to merge it I don't know much about that and would probably butcher it. So far I would settle for that.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I'm not convinced that Catholicism and cannabis is notable either. But Christianity and cannabis would be, and for the time being perhaps the material is best put in Cannabis and religion#Catholicism. I would think that this title should be deleted rather than redirected there though, as it is an implausible search target for the latter information. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a little averse to just throwing it into Christianity and cannabis/Cannabis and religion, as porting the contents of Cannabis in Vatican City in there would be bulky. Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! fromL3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We'd be trimming the bits that are only about Vatican City. As the second largest religious denomination after Sunni Islam, Catholicism is entitled to a fair share of Cannabis and religion article with its 1.3 billion adherents. If it is to be a separate article, certainly Christianity and cannabis should be created before the subtopic Catholicism and cannabis. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how weed being illegal in Vatican City isn't notable. The city-state is inherently and essentially tied to the Holy See itself, so it deserves coverage. It's more than notable, millions of people visit the Vatican every year, at least some of whom have tried or want to know about weed and its relationship with the Papacy.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      But that's just speculation. The objective criterion we use is WP:GNG and it is not met here. Burden of proof lies on those wishing to show it is notable. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If your claim were consistent, a LOT of the Cannabis in X country articles would need to be deleted. Is marijuana policy in Vatican City really not as notable as the articles for San Marino, Sao Tome e Principe, the Cook Islands, New Caledonia (now we're just getting into dependent territories, not sovereign nations) and other tiny lands? What you're proposing ought to imply a large-reaching reform and decision about weed-related articles, not just knock off a few individual ones.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said before, Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale here, but feel free to nominate any pages for deletion yourself after evaluating them according to WP:BEFORE (as I did here, but don't have time to do on 200 pages). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't it be far better for the site if you're correct, to try to enact a general change in policy concerning weed-related articles instead of pruning individual ones like this? I don't think OSE applies here necessarily, because in this case A LOT of other stuff exists to the extent it becomes a rule. I don't know what makes Vatican City so special a target.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, there is no point making a policy for such a small set of articles (a couple of hundred). There's no need, because our current policies cover it already—specifically WP:GNG, which you continue not to mention. I'll say again: I do not view Vatican City as a unique case, but as this is the third time I've made the point, I won't continue to harp on about it any further. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Your sharpshooting strategy here is very bizarre. I must say. Regardless, I can only settle on merging with most of the content remaining intact.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For completeness: my opening comment at PR was "I initially thought this a rather odd topic for an article". While noting it formed part of a series, I also remarked that "the History section looks patchy. 1484 and then nothing until 1929". I think Bilorv has a valid point. If there's really nothing worth noting about cannabis use in The Vatican, or any specific state, then it is questionable as to whether an article on the topic is warranted. Another suggestion might be a section within the article, Cannabis in Italy. KJP1 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @KJP1: Thank you for your comment! Do you believe then, if by your suggestion the Vatican should be merged into the Italy article, should the same apply for its sister microstate by Cannabis in San Marino, which is also scant in content?--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly, but I've not read it. Have you read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? KJP1 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes right, I was linked it earlier today. Cannabis in San Marino though the article is like stub length so check it out.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 04:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to a new cannabis section in Crime in Vatican City, and add a single sentence regarding canabis' illegality to Vatican City#Crime. Doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a content fork. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, i am confused by one of the article creator's initial statements - "there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis.", i count 22 countries/territories in that article that are redlinked so, no, WP does not have a canabis article for every country. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, agree with the nominator that the article does not have enough appropriate sources (ie. actually about this specific subject) to warrant a standalone (i have been unable to find any and none have been forthcoming), although the above suggestions about merging/adding some info to various articles are possible, i believe this to be inappropriate as it would place too much emphasis on this issue in those articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 18 January 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) 19:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Chanaratsopon[edit]

    Charlie Chanaratsopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG JC7V (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete general notability guidelines requires multiple sources, which are not present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    August 2016 lunar eclipse[edit]

    August 2016 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    NASA removed this eclipse from the website, also not much media report this eclipse B dash (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Keep. This is sort of the astronomy version of a WP:CRYSTAL cautionary tale. Eclipse models suggested that there would be an August 2016 event that would just barely count as an eclipse: about 18 minutes of penumbral shadow time (normally, even very short penumbral lunar eclipses are more like an hour in duration). At one point, NASA listed the event in their database, and there was a little bit of news coverage. Except, upon review, NASA determined that the model was wrong. The calculations for these eclipses are subject to periodic refinement, as is the understanding of the shape and size of Earth's shadow. The moon didn't barely graze Earth's shadow; it barely missed instead. Accordingly, this event was removed from the database, and the previous event in Lunar Saros 109 was declared to be the endpoint of that series. There was an even tinier bit of coverage of that. I'm inclined to think that this can just be deleted. But I'm open to the suggestion that it received sufficient attention to be notable as a predicted event, even if that event did not actually occur. Several related articles will still need tidied up in any case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a pretty interesting article could actually be written about this based on those two sources. FOARP (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay, peer pressure. I've found some actual academic discussion of what happened here. I'll try to get a revision up either tomorrow or Monday. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten, citing a small collection of NASA publications for an explanation of the change, along with the web coverage. There's probably still some cleanup to do involving related pages, but I'm actually surprisingly happy with the result here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work. An example of a really productive AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree with FOARP, this is a notable failure of prediction of what is usually thought of as something as predictable as clockwork. Although the coverage is minimal, it is enough for our purposes. SpinningSpark 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Its one of those boundary cases that depends on definitions that shift slightly, but still fits within the eclipse cycles, and useful to explain an event that didn't actually happen if anyone wonders. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Topic is verifiable. It also appears tenable for the scientific wiki community. Mgbo120 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per Everyone. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep – still a notable celestial event that gained attention worldwide. It was one of the few notable inaccuracies in solar models in recent modern history. Passes GNG and is verifiable. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 17 January 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Héctor Castellanos[edit]

    Héctor Castellanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without explanation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Castellanos is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (particularly Honduran newspapers - example1, example2). I suspect the article may satisfy NFOOTBALL due to his appearances in the CONCACAF Champions League, but I would need to provide evidence that Motagua is a fully-pro outfit (and I don't have time at the moment). However, satisfying the GNG should be enough. Jogurney (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To note Jo, appearances in continental competition has to be between two clubs from FPL, not to clubs that are fully pro, so that wouldn't count in this instance. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep a quick search of "Héctor Castellanos Motagua" brings up a ton of Honduran press, such as [57] discussing his potential move abroad and [58] quoting him on the security situation in the country. This is atypical coverage. He therefore passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 12 January 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_10&oldid=1142614212"