Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 January 21 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micromasters (disambiguation)[edit]

Micromasters (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)

Needless disambiguation page as there are only two entries: Micromasters (a toy line) and MicroMasters (an education program). They can be disambiguated by linking to each other directly. JIP | Talk 23:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:54, 21 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Bedoya Martínez[edit]

Jaime Bedoya Martínez (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Google searches generally bring up hits related to a Peruvian journalist for the newspaper El Comercio, and a Colombian former Liberal Party candidate for Congress, neither of whom are this subject. No reliable independent sources have been found for this author – the article is mostly OR and reads like it has been sourced from a publicity press release (indeed, much of the article text appears to have been taken from a translation of Mr. Bedoya's Amazon biography [1]). Of the current three references in the article, the first is a blog, and the third simply mentions Mr. Bedoya within a long list of other authors; the second reference may be reliable, but I have not heard of the website before, and it doesn't appear to have a page for checking its credentials and editorial oversight. Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:COI. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:13, 26 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Operator[edit]

Plastic Operator (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)

References are not sources but links to the group’s recordings. Unable to find multiple independent reliable sources to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find an RSes either other than https://www.allmusic.com/album/different-places-mw0001602595. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are claims here that could get them into Wikipedia if they were referenced properly, bands are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC just because of what the article says they did — musicians frequently try to curveball themselves into Wikipedia for promotional purposes by making self-aggrandizing marketing claims about themselves that can't actually be verified as true, so the notability test is not what the article says but how well it reliably sources what it says to media coverage which properly verifies that the claims are true. But if the only quality reference we can find is one album review on AllMusic, that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 27 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 Delete. WP:G11 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bausele[edit]

Bausele (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)

Promotional and unreferenced Bigwig7 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Tagged for notability in 2014, it has not been forthcoming. This is a press release, posted in the wrong place. cygnis insignis 20:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy even (A7 or G11). This is a non notable company and article reads at a promotional piece. Ajf773 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteARTSPAM. Even before the founder of the company got hold of it, it was artspam. Not eligible for A7 as prior decline. The only reason I did not honor the G11 is the somewhat dim hope there is a good version somewhere.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:38, 21 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nopphon Lakhonphon[edit]

Nopphon Lakhonphon (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 based on an unsupported claim to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's coverage from Buriram's 2015 friendly against the Laos National Team, where he first made an appearance.[2][3] He was also on Buriram's roster for the 2015 Premier League, making him the youngest player in the league at 15 years.[4] (Though I understand he didn't make any appearances.) The more recent coverage is of him making the U19 National Team.[5][6] --Paul_012 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 20 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Ouyang[edit]

Wong & Ouyang (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 evidence of any notability. Searches reveal little, but language differences may restirct a full search. Appears to be just another Architectural firm. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure the company will pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or not. The firm did existed, newspaper reported the wage cut of the firm as news (as one of the major firm of the city). However, i am not sure any in-depth coverage existed, such as architectural book that cover the work by the firm. Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is probably the most prominent architecture firm of Hong Kong origin. I lean towards assuming good faith that the two books on architectural history cited in the article has sufficient in-depth coverage. Deryck C. 14:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i saw such citation was added after the start of the afd discussion. Based on the book title and publisher they seem RS. Not sure the content is about the work and the firm or the firm only BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan:, @Matthew hk:, there's no doubt it is a large and well-established firm. The books mentioned in the article are available on Google Books. Only one of those references, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015 passes the criteria for establishing notability, the others discuss the buildings with only a mention to the firm. At least one more reference is required. HighKing++ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. At least one other required and I am unable to find another. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP. Happy to change my !vote if another reference turns up. HighKing++ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The firm has significant projects and awards. Note the article could be considered to be a valid list-article of the works of the firm, because certainly a category could exist (i didn't check) to categorize the multiple individually notable works, and then by wp:CLNT it is valid to have a list-article corresponding to the category. It is far better to have one article about the firm which can be linked from multiple individual building articles, rather than repeating a whole description of the company at each of the separate articles. --Doncram (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The closing admin is likely to ignore your !vote above as you have not cited any reasons based on policies or guidelines. Also, we base a conclusion on notability on references. Can you provide at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the work is notable (i.e. have wiki article, have sourced description of the arch structure in the article), than having a centralized list, seem passing Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stand-alone lists are still subject to notability criteria. There are no indications that there are any sources that discuss/list the work of Wong & Ouyang. Creating stand-alone lists isn't a run-around on notability. HighKing++ 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It ertainly meets the requirements for keeping as a list of works, as the WP:GNG specifically provides for a list or coination article if the works are either less than notable or we don;t have enough information. But given theat there are probably articles about each major building, I think it's safeto say that a firm with such major works can beconsidered notable . Any reason the consensus accepts for notability is a good reason. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 27 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. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital dependencies and global mental health[edit]

Digital dependencies and global mental health (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)

Lots of reasons for deletion. Duplicates an existing article. WP:NOTESSAY. Very odd title consistent with same. WP:SPLIT which may be better addressed by discussion on the original article. Lots of original synthesis. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination, the article has received a lot of attention, with most of my major concerns addressed and a lot more hands / eyes on board. I agree the new title makes a lot more sense and is in fact a topic notable enough to be covered here. For what it's worth, I withdraw my nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Social media addiction (which it was a fork from). There's useful material here, but the title sucks and the motivation to write on these topics while ducking MEDRS was never going to work. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has changed considerably from when it was nominated. It still requires a lot of work and there are many unresolved issues, but AfD is not clean-up. At this point in time, I support weak keep, but happy for the issue to be re-visited once other merge discussions have been settled and some stability reached. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not ducking MEDRS at all. We need to recognise very carefully that the words "use" "addiction" "dependence" and "overuse" are exactly the same - the same topic - there is just differentiation in terminology here. I'm not married to any titles. I simply contend that as social media addiction (or dependence or overuse) or whatever should and must be separate as that predominantly affects women and girls. Womens health are presently happy for that to be a top importance article. This article is meant to try to cover them all in their broader societal context. MEDRS certainly applies. We are not able to include the most reliable study due to unknown reasons that editors do not comment on. This is the reason for the RfCs and the notices. Linguistics should come to consensus. We do not comment on the content of digital addict or screen time which in my opinion breaks guidelines to far greater extent. We need to take into account all disciplines opinions here. Neuroscience portal members thanked me for joining, we need more neuroscience. We have to develop consensus around linguistics. Having a start class article about social media addiction is OK considering womens health are happy to have it rated high importance. Because it is. E.3 (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with caution This article was originally a fork of Social media addiction and most of the content had previously been removed from that article per WP:SYN. It looks like the WP:SYN has mostly been trimmed and there may be some useful non-duplicate content that can be merged. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is addressing in a far better, much more WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS compliant way with top importance from all associated portals than digital addict which for some reason all editors are not commenting on. I have brought all usable things from that article across. We should delete that one and keep this separate, I have no idea why its only my edits on the issue being questioned. And my questions remain unanswered about ADHD. This is against the policies of false balance and weight, its getting a little bit over the top now, I've attracted as much attention from quite literally any other editor, but linguistic gymnastics is causing some severe WP:POV issues here. E.3 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Increasingly prevelance of mental health issues over the last 8 years or so do indeed represent a huge problem. For American girls for example, rates of major depressive episodes & sucide seem to have increased by close to 100%. Thousands of reasearchers are invsestigating the links with digital, and the article does a fair job of capturing this. Only weak keep however as I partly share the nom's concern about synth. Synth concerns could IMO be significantly reduced if the article was re-titled to either Digital technolgy and mental health or Digital platforms and mental health. Such a change should also help with NPOV, as it then becomes easier to include the many positive findings about tech's impact on mental health. If E.3. agrees with this, I'd be happy to upgrade my vote to strong keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not up to E.3 to agree or not. No-one owns any article. It is up to the community. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the preference intensity of my vote is entirely up to E.3. Whether or not a re-title is allowed to stand is indeed a matter for the community. Hopefully folks will work collaboratively with E.3. to improve the quality of the article, as while of huge impact & notability, this is admittedly not an easy topic to write about. Time will tell. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I comment that it was not an essay at all because I quoted things all the time before and then I was told it was not free. This is not quasi science. Consensus at the moment is against improving hard science. No one tells me why. This is allowed to include philosophy sociology anthropology and they all have their feet in the game. Perfectly happy to change it to any title “digital technology and mental health” sounds fine to me, I have six other suggestions open for comment —-E.3 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is neither an essay or quasi science. Many editors have tried to explain why you've been getting push back. In brief, you're trying to move too fast. Let me give you some examples. You chosen one of the world's most pressing and complex topics to write about. You tried to have the article elevated to our highest status on day one! Folk tried to give you advise about the danger of being too enthusiastic and the need to let the article improve "over time". Instead you put the article up for GA status on day two. That's almost as hasty as trying to get your article promoted to FA on day 1. Especially as you clearly don't yet have the experience to know how guidelines like WP:Synth & WP:NOR are applied. There's lots more to it of course but this isn't the place for a long and comprehensive answer. Again, sorry if this is disheartening. As said, this is a hugely important topic and I'd sure I'm not the only one who would very much like you to succeed in helping to build a good article on the topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for this FredHuxtable and i agree with both your comments here and on my talk page. I will change the title to digital media use and mental health - we need to focus on association, we need to quote those who say its nothing if theyre reliable etc etc. etc. All the mentioned specialties are involved. I'll leave social media addiction to more experienced editors as that essay is far too stressful for me personally to edit - due to the edit conflicts, not my coi or pov (which I keep admitting is intentionally trying to be neutral and consider quite literally all reliable sources from all related disciplines). Also as my MEDRS RfC has had some comment I'll try and add the hard science. Many people are sayiing that i'm working too fast. I am being WP:BOLD because I am not doctoring for 4 more weeks, and I wont have much time to contribute after that. E.3 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia does not and should not provide spaces for untested quasi-scientific essays.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE do not change the title while the article is in AfD. David notMD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had commented here on how content about ADHD would likely be off-topic for the article - leading to the renaming from "Digital dependencies and global mental health" to "Digital media use and mental health". This indicates that this is content in search of a place on Wikipedia, not an attempt to write an encyclopedia article about any fixed topic (more specifically, apparently Wikipedia should say somewhere that social media use may cause ADHD). The current title is uselessly vague. Neither is suitable for an encyclopedia. The content is a hodge-podge of factoids that might be relevant to the topic (or not) but are here assembled to push a certain POV. Huon (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not responding to you, I repetitively state that I am not trying to only consider adhd here, I am not, please trust me. I am responding to the above editor who suggested the title is the problem, the only super helpful suggestion so far, so I did it. I won’t do it again. This is not a POV. The sources as the other editor states are quite literally everywhere and most if not all are Medrs compliant, sociology wiki project allows discussion of medicine that is their job some of the time, so media sources of reputable people on the issue are allowed to be quoted both under medrs and it being a society and culture article. That is MEDRS policy through and through, what exactly breaks it now? I contend nothing. digital addict, many things. Deletion is not meant to be a form of cleanup. This is an attempt to not even consider my contributions, simply deleting the whole article. As I have RFCd it and they are happy for me only commenters are happy include psychiatry, I’ll do that in a bit. E.3 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if there is no further discussion around the RfCs or pointing out to me how this logic does not apply in regards to wiki project sociology and medrs, I’ll close the RfCs down, add the parts, and if further edit conflict that isn’t explained I’ll request binding arbitration thanks. I don’t want that, I want help, but no one has added real text to the articles since 2011, and only two helpful suggestions re content for such an important issue. —-E.3 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep This is a good article although it may benefit from a title change.— Ineuw talk 03:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding it to how digital addict was sorted for more discussion, thanks for everyone so far!
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. E.3 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTESSAY on a vague topic (indeed still after the title was changed during this AfD) and covers a lot of WP:SYNTH. I trimmed related article Social media addiction and after that, this article was created with the same problems and more due to even broader defined title. Also want to repeat what Huon said in their vote above. --Treetear (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like ill take it to arbitration if this continues. Two strong keeps, other biased editors, no help, no cleanup of the other articles at all. Something very dodgy is going on. Arbitration next step. E.3 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed that I want arbitration with the two editors who do not discuss their deletions and repetitively call things synth when others do not. They have POV. This is a risky comment but because the 2011 editors contributions to social media addiction were deleted, in mine and others best guess after discussing with some of these experts I have cited, these deletions led to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. This is why I am taking this matter so seriously E.3 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have my opinions on the talk page and the neutral article on the main page. Thats ok I understand. I listed it, but its not ready for arbitration, its a content dispute. Could editors please comment on the RfCs, preferably uninvolved, as as they said "there are some concerns about the conduct of some editors involved" E.3 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No valid reason for deletion has been cited. There are legitimate editorial complaints that can be fixed by editing or even merging the article. We do not delete that which can be fixed. The topic is encyclopedic and it is notable. Digital media is broader than social media. It includes gaming online and video streaming. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As explained on my talk page and my user page I have a mind that thinks quite abstractly and I misunderstand things. I just get very concerned about perceived bias, whilst acknowledging my own. I can write much better than I have here, I just have never attempted to write encyclopaedically and for me as a doctor 1+1=2, for me in the rest of my life 1+1=3. Thanks again everyone! Especially @Bondegezou: sorry about the pushback, @Huon: I mostly just cant understand some things you say despite trying, ill keep trying, @Dlthewave: for effectively being my "otter" and to @FeydHuxtable: for somehow managing to put it on my talk page just now in a way that I understand. E.3 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article isn't just about people addicted to social interactions with digital devices, but also video games and whatnot which effects the developing brains of the young apparently. So a separate article makes sense. Dream Focus 03:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears to me that the two articles social media addiction and digital dependencies and global mental health (terrible title) have evolved to the point where they are separate topics with decent sourcing. I don't believe the notability of either topic is in question, which is really all that matters in an AFD discussion. This isn't a POV fork, it appears to be a valid topic that falls under the WP:SPINOFF or WP:RELART guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what is the topic of the article? I can't tell. The lead section doesn't say. The title has changed since the article was nominated for deletion. I don't think those arguing to keep the page agree amongst themselves. Bondegezou, E.3, Ineuw, Jehochman, Dream Focus and Anachronist, would you mind summarizing succinctly what, in your opinion, this page's topic is, maybe in a way that would be suitable as a first sentence? I think we can all agree that the current first sentence could do with improvement and does not suitably introduce or define the topic ("Digital media use has been complicated by digital media overuse, variously termed digital addictions or digital dependencies"; in fact, I'd stick a [Citation needed] on that sentence if the article is kept). For all those who have argued that this is a notable topic that deserves a stand-alone article, I might agree with you - if only I could tell what that topic is. Huon (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone moved the article while discussion was ongoing, disappointingly. It is currently named Digital media use and mental health. "This is an article about the effects of digital media use on mental health." Seems like a reasonable and notable topic. I have seen lots of articles about this. Everybody seems to use slightly different nomenclature so we have to have a separate discussion about the best name for the article, and whether to increase or decrease the scope, and whether to merge of spin off sub-topics. There's a lot to decide. Deletion is not a substitute for making editorial decisions. Jehochman Talk 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So something like "Effects of digital media use on mental health" would be a better title, in your opinion? Does the article, in your opinion, cover that topic beyond what should be placed in social media addiction (which arguably might be considered a sub-topic), ie is there currently any content that couldn't be merged? I don't see much beyond the effects of social media on mental health, nothing beyond the addictive effects of social media use. I'll also note that there was a recent discussion on the talk page about whether journalism might be relevant in some way. Huon (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion sounds good. I would make the other article a child of this one. Place a summary here, and leave the bulk of content there. I'm not sure about journalism. I haven't looked at that discussion. Jehochman Talk 23:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: it is meant to be the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder. It is about all digital media and their effects on mental health from a societal perspective. I have a whole title discussion on the talk page. E.3 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article becomes too long, presumably sections can be spun out as child articles. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same page. First, merge to eliminate redundancy and combine related content. Then break apart as needed to create articles of appropriate length and focus. Closing admin, this is what I want. Merge is technically a "keep" type result. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to expand Digital media use and mental health to be broader than about addiction, although I support looking at merging the other articles. Digital media use and mental health now has content on digital media being used to help with mental health and on possible effects of non-addictive use. Bondegezou (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable source that discusses this general topic without us engaging in synthesis? Which one? I'll also note that the original author argued above that this should be "the mother article of video game addiction social media addiction and internet addiction disorder", which to me indicates that, at least to him, "addiction" is a central aspect of the topic. Huon (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup to me this is the point. I think we should have the articles separate and improve as they stand. But at the moment it is such a high importance issue, its all encyclopedic, we can't have dodgy articles all over the place about it. I think because of the sex thing social media addiction should be separate to internet addiction, but internet addiction is excessively long and unreadable at present. Digital addict needs a merge I have tried to take all its usable parts here. Happy with any consensus. It works on other languages better than here. The reason being, as I have noted in citations, the word addiction itself causes major major conflict and disagreements amongst the experts. So if we change the tone and sort out the articles here, perhaps at best the experts will follow. E.3 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But in answer to the question about a reliable article doing it as a general topic - medicine has not. Anthropology and sociology have for years. Thats why I consider anthropology and sociology should "mother" the medical articles. Because theyve been doing it for longer. The books are summarised, I've read them all. They all talk about it as a general societal topic. E.3 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we have the
social media addiction,
internet addiction disorder,
electronic media and sleep,
video game addiction,
screen time,
mobile phone overuse,
gaming disorder,
digital addict
and nomophobia
all trying to take on this and associated topics. Because of the attention raised to this article, it is the most compliant. There seems to be consensus to me not to delete it, because this is the most thorough attempt at compliance with our policies so far.
I suggest: 1. We don't delete, theres consensus around that I understand (Ish).
2. We consider this to be the mother article, I agree with @Bondegezou: that we can have good parts of tech in mental health in it so that it is neutral. But we do not want it overly vague. It must have medical expert opinion, I suggest at the very least Christiakis has to stay.
3. We then continue the discussion around the title, which is the hardest part of the whole article to develop consensus, for numerous reasons.
4. We keep social media addiction, internet addiction disorder and one of gaming disorder or video game addiction as daughter articles, cleaning up all and moving content to and or from this article.
5. For readability I think we should have the specialties separate in this article, and then link to the disorders in separate articles. Because each specialty fundamentally disagrees on how to broach the topic, only anthropology and sociology are roughly on the same page. Neuroscience is behind. Medicine is at war with each other. Psychology are stuck in the middle.
6. All useable points from screen time, mobile phone overuse, nomophobia, electronic media and sleep, and digital addict are Brought to this article in the coherent fashion involving the specialties or whatever else we decide. Then wiki might make a bit of sense on the issue. E.3 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry theres even more. I put them all as proposed mergers to the page. The topic is all over the place on English wiki in my opinion. Sorry if I broke deletion guidelines about listing mergers, I'm not trying to get around deletion discussions, this is just a tough topic. I really think computer addiction is out of date in terms of the title of its terminology, and I'm a bit shocked by the presence of smartphone zombie. I placed that article in medicine's scope, gave it the only cite I could find that links the two, stated its not medical terminology on the page, and it needs WP:MEDRS compliant references if it is to stay, in my opinion. In my humble opinion, there is some good content on that page but the title needs to go, its highly offensive I suspect to many people. Any assistance with listing these highly complex merges with Wikiproject:Merge would be fantastic I can't work it out. Thanks again everyone. E.3 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the exact wording of usable points from smartphone zombie across and nominated it for deletion here. I did this because there is good content in this article, but in my opinion its presence will continue the moral panic around screen time. E.3 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.3, please wait for one set of discussions to be completed before starting a whole bunch of related ones. Also, please don't start getting into more complex Wikipedia actions until you know what you are doing, or ask for some help. If you tag something as a suggested merge, you need to start a clear discussion on a Talk page explaining your suggestion. I've done that for you now. Your AfD for smartphone zombie has been done incorrectly. Hopefully someone will come along to fix it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Bondegezou: Thats exactly what I'm doing, asking for help. Thanks for your help. E.3 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason for my actions today is because I am genuinely shocked that smartphone zombie exists on the most up to date, most read resource in the world on these topics. I didn't notice until today, but I am genuinely shocked. E.3 (talk) 10:47, 21 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 keep arguments mention things that may indicate notability, but which do not demonstrate that the subject meets one of our actual criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B.F.F Is Ready[edit]

B.F.F Is Ready (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 aren't reliable, list track listings. Nothing to indicate it is notable enough for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn recording by artiste without article; had YMA4 existed I would say redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete — Falls under speedy deletion criteria as a non-notable album without a parent artist article (the artist is likely not notable anyways).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC) editor has been blocked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't blocked for socking, so really the !vote shouldn't be struck as there is no basis for striking votes of non-socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The album was required by one of the biggest record label in South Africa "Gallo Records and the label had number of meetings with YMA4 about record and publishing deals including Sheer Music. They also met with Nasty C for upcoming projects. The duo performed a song named " Myself" from the mixtape on "Expression", a programme on SABC 1. Dwayne Moony 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
None of that matters for this particular album article because the album has not been discussed in the media, and all information about it (including the sources in the article now) are simply listings at retail/streaming sites like you would find for any other run-of-the-mill album. Also, per Wikipedia policy there should be no album article if there is no article for the rap duo. Consider creating a supportable (with sources) article for the rap duo first, if there is evidence that they are notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The album is clearly non-notable on its own terms (see my comment above), and there is no place for this album article if the band has no article of their own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, These guys performed in India they shared stage with Indian rapper Rbbt, King Monada, Sho Madjozi and some of their songs were aired on BBC Radio 4. According to Notable criteria mentioned by Doomsdayer520 the mixtape meet at least certain requirements since some of the songs from the mixtape were performed on SABC's one major programmes and got airplay outside South Africa, does that make the duo not notable according to you? Surely someone will create there parent article and artists they shared stages with and programme they appeared on since they qualify to have there own articles as well. Mr Samm W. 00:54 15 January 2019 (UTC)
This voting process is about the album. Whether or not the rap duo is notable will be a separate discussion when and if someone writes an article about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree is about the album,the album is used by South African media company, was performed on nation television show, rated for international level and it is not a self-published album.Dwayne Moony 12:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:32, 20 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Drost[edit]

Robert Drost (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)

WP:Before and the refs in the article don't indicate notability. Tagged for notability since 2014. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep refs do indicate notabiloty, as described in the article.- Altenmann >talk 06:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • weak DELETE There is not a lot here, and I am unsure if any of the awards would confirm notability (As the awards themselves do not seem to be all that notable).Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • worlds top innovators award not notable? Hmm let me sleep on it.... - Altenmann >talk 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ....done. Go ahead an delete the article about award, if you suceed, I am with you, if not the award is, how to put it correctly?... notable? - Altenmann >talk 04:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell it is a list, not an award. Also the link seems broken, so I cannot even verify the claim/Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this Innovators Under 35?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really care to stand for this guy. And there is mo more sum microsystems to stand for him. And it looks like nothing else useful can be found of him - Altenmann >talk 08:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak deletekeep He's written a number of articles and has a lot of patents, but I don't know of any standard that uses these to show notability. He had a discovery that got him onto an MIT list of "100 Innovators Under 35" but it's basically just a list of names and one sentence summaries. I'm leaning delete because I didn't find significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources which is what the GNG requires.Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to change my vote based on DGG's comments. I didn't know about the patent citations.Sandals1 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of WP:PROF. Though scientist or engineer in a technical field can be notable from their work in other ways than publications, he meets the standard for beign an authority in his field on the basis of the publications. He has multiple publications with high citations (the highest is 230 ! ) many of them in iEEE symposia, which are the highest quality sources in his field,.We evaluate patents by two criteria: one is whether they are exploited in a significant way, (which I am unable to analyze) and the other is just like journal articles, by the citations to them . His two highest cited patents have been referenced 150 and 83 times. That's enough in an subject. I wonder why nobody looked,but perhaps it wasn't realizerd that patents are included in Google Scholar just the same as other publications. (I'll add the citations to the article tomorrow) DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 27 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. czar 15:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gayish (podcast)[edit]

Gayish (podcast) (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 is by no means a {{db-web}} case but I'm not convinced by the references, or by my own source searches, that this passes WP:NWEB. SITH (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched for further sources and couldn't find anything else than what is already listed in the article. Unfortunately I don't think that's enough; there isn't one stand alone article about the podcast. The best they've got for sources would be inclusion in lists of podcasts (Buzzfeed article, etc). Maybe WP:TOOSOON? --Kbabej (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No redirect target. wumbolo ^^^ 22:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:TOOSOON. PlotHelpful (talk) 15:11, 27 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) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 328[edit]

Aer Lingus Flight 328 (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 incident. At most this deserves is a mention in a airport or airline article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hull loss, only 2nd of that aircraft type. A lack of fatalities does not equate to a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I have pointed out before, WP has only about half the hull losses of much more significant aircraft like 727s and DC9s with articles. In fact articles have been deleted that are hull losses. For the Short360, exactly 2 out of 16 hull losses have articles. The first Short hull loss don't have an article. What is notable about this one from the thousands of other hull losses?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If air-crash articles are being wrongly deleted (and they are, as we saw with the recent discussion about Korean Air Flight 2708) then this is something to discuss outside of this AFD. Otherwise, WP:WAX FOARP (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Au Contraire, I would say that Korean Air Flight 2708 was wrongly saved from deletion--Petebutt (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite being an early hull loss for this type of aircraft, it appears to fail WP:EVENT, especially WP:PERSISTENCE. I found two wire service articles at the time of the crash. A later article mentions the crash in a list of incidents related to turboprop safety. official accident report had three recommendations, but I haven't found evidence they came to anything. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A hull-loss is a clear keep. Like • Gene93k, though, I've had a hard time finding sources indicating notability, and without that this fails WP:GNG.FOARP (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite the hull loss there is very little notability in this accident. If proof of significant changes to aircraft design maintenance or operations can be directly attributed to this incident then there would be a case for keeping it.--Petebutt (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AIRCRASH is but an essay, and this fairly small (or medium-small) civil aircraft (36 seats, 12,292 kg MTOW) is in the grey zone of the essay. Per ASN this was indeed "Damaged beyond repair", but also that "The cockpit and passenger cabin were relatively undamaged and there was no fire". What is lacking here - is WP:SIGCOV, and given the circumstances of the crash it seems likely to believe that it simply isn't there. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found significant coverage in newspaper archives on 1 February 1986, but per WP:EVENT there is no enduring coverage beyond an immediate recounting of the event, no analysis. If enduring coverage is found or the article is otherwise kept, ping me and I will add these sources.--Pontificalibus 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENT. No enduring notability.Charles (talk) 10:32, 23 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. Noting that non-English language sources/searches were not discussed. (The subject is a Hindi-language publication.) czar 15:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Dreams[edit]

Bollywood Dreams (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)

Doesn't seem notable, a quick WP:BEFORE search did not bring up anything. Regards.  — fr + 18:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SOFTDELETE discussion
  • Jovanmilic97, what happened to SOFTDELETE? See RELISTBIAS.∯WBGconverse 16:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric From what i know and what I usually see here in lots of cases, 2 relists is a minimum before a soft deletion happens. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to add Winged Blades of Godric , WP:RELISTBIAS is for discussions which "has already fully debated the merit of the article" as it clearly says in the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jovanmilic97, please don't do that any further. The community authorized the fourth criterion of WP:NOQUORUM explicitly over a widely-advertised-RFC and your relists are adding to the administrative backlogs.
    Obviously, you have a discretion to relist in exceptional scenarios but this is not such a case, either.∯WBGconverse 18:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Read point 5 of the essay. And, it pretty much aligns with the discussed theme. ∯WBGconverse 18:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent you a message on the talk page.
  • Delete The link to the magazine takes you to an empty page, and I can't find any information on this magazine at all by searching. ManicSpider (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on Bollywood Dreams as magazine from search engines, another promo page. PlotHelpful (talk) 15:02, 27 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 The Jesus Mysteries. Note that The Jesus Mysteries may in turn require improvements, and there's some question about whether it's actually notable, but that can be dealt with in another AfD if somebody desires. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gandy (author)[edit]

Peter Gandy (author) (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)

BLP of an author. Before is showing nothing that would satisfy nauthor. One webpage described him as a mysterious author about which nothing is known. Tagged for notability since 2015. Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too minor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skeptical. I'm not finding any scholarly book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy I did find reviews in Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly and there's a Baker and Taylor biography that describes both. Apparently Freke has also appeared on History channel. I added some reviews but since all of the books are co-authored, I think they should both be on the page. @E.M.Gregory: what do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have an article on Timothy Freke. We do have one on their book, The Jesus Mysteries. If that's considered notable (it's not overwhelming either way) then I'd be OK with a merge there. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pairing them on a page makes sense. The larger problem, as I see it, will be wording the article to make clear that these are two fringe/cranks who write pseudohistory. The Jesus Mysteries is a poster child for the problem we have with crank writers who use WP as advertising space. I just tagged it for fringe, and notability - a quick look makes it look as though the sources have been stretched to PROMO the book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So delete all three. If the book passes WP:NBOOK then I'd be happy to keep it, with two redirects to it, and even any relevant BLP on the authors there. I'd like to know his background and what makes him an authority on this subject. So far we seem to have "He has an MA" and a publication list. But, as we all know, notability for the book relies on secondary sources, not just circular comments from the authors. Do we have enough of that? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be OK with a redirect/merge to The Jesus Mysteries. I'm on the fence with regard to the book's notability but as it isn't currently up for deletion it is a credible target. Szzuk (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to The Jesus Mysteries as the only thing these two have done thet may be notable, even though in its current state it is a page in need of a severe vetting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 20 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. Lack of independent and significant coverage to show notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Mobile (Pakistan)[edit]

United Mobile (Pakistan) (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 seeing any notability beyond publicity and promotional items. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete that article, because if you check the oldest edit/archive (dating back to 2014-2016) of the article United Mobile, It contained information about the Pakistani company with the same name (now in United Mobile (Pakistan)), but was accused of being hijacked content that stayed there for over 3 years, and after when the hijacked content was linked with many wiki articles (eg. Voice Mobile), so a separate article entity was made for it. Please kindly revert this decision. Pakieditor - talk 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First read wp:n an article should only be kept if it can be shown the company is notable (I.E. people other then it have covered it in some depth. Secondly [[7]][ was the original United Mobile, I see no mention of Pakistan.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspect (given the history of United Mobile) that there may be issues with promotion and COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a one line mention.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no in depth coverage about the company therefore I !voted week keep, but it was indeed a leading mobile distributor of Pakistan. The Express Tribune also says the same about it. --Saqib (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It say "one of the leading mobile phone distributors"..Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two major and pioneering phone distributors in Pakistan, one being United Mobile and the other being Advance telecom. Pakieditor (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://nation.com.pk/01-Mar-2014/bank-alfalah-united-mobile-join-hands-for-consumers
https://tribune.com.pk/story/599137/united-mobile-launches-voice-smart-phones/
https://www.flare.pk/alcatel-appoints-united-mobile-official-distributor-pakistan/
It is the main subject in above links. It is also the only tecno mobile distributor in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorkamran (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for evaluation of the sources presented today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the references provided by Editorkamran meet the criteria for establishing notability. Statements like "It is the main subject in above links. It is also the only tecno mobile distributor in Pakistan" do not form part of the criteria. The first link from nation.com fails the criteria as it is a PR announcement from the company (marked as such) and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The second reference from tribine.com.pk is also part of the company's PR activities and relies exclusively on information provided by the company and their United Mobile Marketing Director - fails WP:ORGIND. The final reference from flare.pk is yet more PR surrounding the announcement at a press conference (complete with photo) that the company was appointed a distributer for Alcatel - fails WP:ORGIND. Clearly the topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have made a bunch of searches with the hope of finding a reliable source to support this article but so far nothing. Fails WP:RS and a whole lot of promotional links are used as refs. PlotHelpful (talk) 14:58, 27 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. Michig (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions[edit]

List of Canadian expatriates in foreign political positions (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)

Uncited article of trivial intersection. If someone holds a political office in one country, they can hardly be considered an "expatriate". Their birth in Canada (or any other state) is non-defining. TM 16:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The complementary category was also nominated for deletion. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As funny as I think the wording on the article's title is, Bakazaka raises fair and excellent points. The premise's too vague to really even work as an article without massive changes. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
woops, I pinged the wrong person. I meant TM. I just looked over the article and my point still stands. 3 Canadian-born persons/Canadians became head of state. That is not saying much.. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't only include people who were born in Canada but became politicians elsewhere, but also includes people (e.g. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga) who were born elsewhere and then lived in Canada for a while before moving back home and becoming politicians in their native countries — which is even less relevant as a research topic than birthplace is. Similar content was tried in the past for "people born in [Canadian province] who became politicians in different Canadian provinces they weren't native to", but was deleted as non-defining — and that pertains here for the same reasons. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above, and the fact there is not notable coverage of the specified as a group. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we have a similarly defined List of Canadian expatriate soccer players.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing to be a coherent group. Canada has a right to be proud that it granted political refuge to Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga when he needed it. Canada has a claim to Oswald West, Governor of Oregon, who was born in Canada but emigrated to Oregon when he was a toddler. A clutch of American governors on the list and one Governor of Queensland have more or less this biography. They are emigrants form Canada, not ex-pats. Then there are the Lordly reminders that Canada was part of the British Empire, chaps like Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook, born in a town with the profoundly Canadian name of Maple, Ontario, he did what successful colonials sometimes do: he moved to London. Gino Bucchino, on the other hand, as born in Canada where he has lived his entire life, he practices medicine in Toronto and is "the overseas member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies for North America and Central America." I'm not sure that there are any expatriates in this list, in the common sense of the term. I am sure that they do not form a coherent group. The ones in the list who are emigrated from Canada and went on to become governors and legislators in their new countries are a coherent group. But they are not "expatriates."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list of expatiates is quite vague and for the purpose of preventing spam should be deleted. PlotHelpful (talk) 14:52, 27 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. While there is a division of opinion regards a straight keep or merge it is clear that there is no consensus to delete this page. Further discussion regarding a possible merge can proceed on the relevant talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Litfield Farm[edit]

Litfield Farm (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)

Page created by a sockpuppet promoting people and places related to Staniforth. Outside of architecture interesting to the locale, it doesn't appear to have any significant events or news coverage related to it. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are 374,000 listed buildings in England and Wales. An assumption of notability for the 8% that are Grade I or Grade II* might be ok, but I really don't think it's reasonable to say the remaining 340,000+ that are Grade II are all 'inherently notable'. Looking through the archives of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), WP:GEOFEAT was added to before it was promoted to a guideline and this section did not achieve consensus. I don't think it meets WP:GNG: The official listing is one reliable source and refs 1 & 2 of the present article are both copies of this, but I can't find any others in a web search; ref 3 is not a reliable source and ref 4 is a WP:primary source. Maybe it's worth a sentence at most in the article for Ridgeway, Derbyshire but I don't think it's worth merging as that would unbalance that article. And I don't think we should keep an article on something just because it could be worth an entry in a list article that doesn't yet exist. --Qwfp (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire and start a list there. I just did that, I moved it and it is now the start of a list article. It seems to me silly to keep discussing this AFD, just do it and let's all move on to something more important. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify that this has been done. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved it back. Please do not move articles while an AfD is underway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged or moved to a list, it should be Listed buildings in Eckington, Derbyshire - lists we already have are grade I or II* in a county or all grades in a city, town, civil parish or unparished area, only splitting further if a list becomes too long for one article. Peter James (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article is not about the listed building, which is a farm house. It is about the farm, which is a settlement (it seems it was once a hamlet). Sure, one notable thing about the farm is that it contains a listed farm house, but we certainly shouldn't redirect this to a list of buildings. We need to judge this by WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" and if sources are insufficient redirect to Ridgeway, Derbyshire, where it can be mentioned along with the other settlements already mentioned there, such as Ridgeway Moor and Highlane.--Pontificalibus 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A farm is not a settlement. It is a collection of buildings, one of which is listed. WP:GEOFEAT therefore applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those collection of buildings are houses, let and sold seperately from the farmhouse. This is why sources refer to "Litfield" as well as "Litfield farm". The borderline between a hamlet, an estate and a "farm" can be an unclear one, but sources support this being a populated place.--Pontificalibus 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely splitting hairs. A farm is usually understood as a farm, a complex of buildings, and is therefore covered by WP:GEOFEAT and not WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't matter whether only one of those buildings is listed for that to count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but as I said sources show there are a number of houses in addition to the farm house, and that it is refered to as a named place without the "farm" suffix.--Pontificalibus 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have found a reliable source identifying Litfield as a hamlet and added this to the article. It seems the other neighbouring settlements now subsumed into Ridgeway such as Birley Hay, Ford and Highlane clung to their seperate identities into the late 19th century and so are retained on the first OS maps of the area, but Litfield seems to have been the smallest of these and by then was mapped as a farm.--Pontificalibus 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems to suggest that a separate Litfield article might be in order (although only if it was ever a truly recognised place), but not that this article about a complex of buildings that includes a listed building should be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources clearly show that "Litfield Farm" in the 19th century consisted of a number of houses and so was still a settlement. I don't think it would be useful to have two articles on the same populated place, each covering different time periods. Much more logical to have a Litfield farmhouse article for the listed building, but as I've said I don't beleive that would pass WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 15:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many large farms had multiple cottages for the workers. It doesn't make them a real settlement, any more than a university or a barracks, say, is a settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources available show that occupants did not work on the farm. Regardless, we're going around circles because the fact is niether Litfield Farm, Litfield farmhouse nor Litfield are notable and should all be redirected to Ridgeway, Derbyshire.--Pontificalibus 10:05, 25 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. Michig (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud El Henidy[edit]

Mahmoud El Henidy (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)

Auotbiographical, main editor appears to also be subject. Does not meet notability requirements. Britishfinance suggested that it was hoax, per talk page: I'm not sure whether or not its a hoax but I think it is a candidate for deletion regardless. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I put this up for CSD A7 but it was contested by Phil Bridger on the grounds the article text stated the subject was important (which was a fair challenge). I came back a few days later to try and find references but could not find a single credible, quality, secondary, independent reference supporting that he was a major dancer with the Cairo Ballet. All I found were blogs that seemed linked to him. In contrast, when I just googled the Cairo Ballet, I got lots of quality references on their activities and performances, however, when I added the subject's name to them, they dried up. At best, he may(?) have done some dancing with the Cairo Ballet (e.g. background dancer), however, it is possible that he never danced with the Cairo Ballet at all? Britishfinance (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There has already been a deletion discussion on this subject under another slightly different name and the result was delete. When the article was recreated, it got salted. Nobody has ever presented independent, reliable sources about this article's subject. Another subject that has been repeatedly recreated by the same Wikipedian is Ahlam Younes, see user's talk page. Iselilja (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good spot Iselilja; this would need more serous salting as the creator shows knowledge of how to by-pass salting by altering the name.Britishfinance (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Lucifero4
  • Delete. The evidence all points to this being a ballet teacher making unfounded claims of being a soloist with a notable company in order to boost his career. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. I can't find anything that establishes notability other than his self published CV and profile. Unless he goes by another name, I can't find anything. I can't view the 4th ref.Tamsier (talk) 19:43, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Crabbe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bruce Crabbe (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)

An article on this subject was deleted before. Nothing has changed since then. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. All sources are of the WP:ROUTINE variety, no significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are either primary or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Minor league player and coach. Fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL and coverage is typical sports reporting. Don't believe winning a Rookie League manager of the year award is enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 26 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) 14:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repl.it[edit]

Repl.it (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 evidence of notability. Every ref is from their own website. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Yesterday i tagged delete under csd A7 and someone removed the tag. It has been rejected two times in the draft space and not notable.AD Talk 04:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed delete message from Repl.it because of above Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosrod (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Not English -

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. References above are run-of-the-mill mentions or based on announcements, etc. HighKing++ 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Pontificalibus (talk · contribs) and Mosrod (talk · contribs). The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Source like this and this provide analysis about Repl.it such as: "In a simplified way, REPL.it allows educators to create a tool like CodeCademy on their own—just not as student friendly. If the teacher-friendly REPL.it and the learner-friendly CodeCademy could merge their platforms, that would be significant." And (translated from Spanish to English in Google Translate): "Repl.it can be a great tool for students and teachers, offering a simple and interactive environment. The best of all is that you can share your code with a link and return to it whenever you need it." Cunard (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but permit a proper article actually using the few references from the above list that are relevant. the references are mostly mentions, like the one from Lifehacker which is a name on a list, or the many that are just pr o about initial funding, which is not usable for notability per NCORP. I'd normally say fix in a situation like that, but experience shows articles like this almost never do get fixed. But if {{U|Cunard|} wants to take responsibility for doing it, then I'd support keeping and letting him do it. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kamalu[edit]

Jordan Kamalu (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)

Kamalu is not yet a notable musician. I have to admit as a BYU alumni, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who served as a missionary for the Church, and a fan of musicals I want to be able to keep this article. However Kamalu has made a few student productions but nothing of true lasting impact. He is not yet notable, mayube one day, but not yet. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the only claim of importance is winning a student award; [8] is a local interest story. Neither a university press release nor his own website count for the purposes of GNG, and the American Idol article linked doesn't mention him at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom and Power~enwiki. ManicSpider (talk) 11:37, 25 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. Last two relists have not resulted in further input, so doesn't seem worth relisting again. Michig (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 Corners (group)[edit]

4 Corners (group) (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)

Unreferenced for ten years and no indication of notability. Very few sources available online (see the talk page for three (two deadlinks) from 2009). Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and should be deleted. AD Talk 07:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks signficant sources and doesn't appear to pass WP:NBAND even with vague, unsourced, mention of reaching the NZ top 40. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from Delete for the given reasons above). They meet number 2 on WP:NBAND (only one needed), being on the top 40 twice [9][10]. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I added some refs to the page corroborating some of its assertions and a Waikato Times article about their tour of Laos and nomination at the NZ music awards (weak WP:NBAND 4 and 8 respectively).[11] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split votes (not counting nom.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 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 D. Woods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day, Volume 1[edit]

Independence Day, Volume 1 (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 mixtape does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability as I could not find enough third-party, reliable coverage to support it having its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with D. Woods--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not a lot of information to merge other than its existence. Aoba47 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would say redirect to D. Woods, but it's debatable whether the artist herself has any individual notability outside of Danity Kane, and could well be a candidate for a merge and redirect to that group's article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a good point, though I will leave the question of whether or not the D. Woods article has enough notability for another editor and AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 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 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (company)[edit]

Firefly (company) (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 do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The twelve sources shown are diverse, have editorial oversight and are substantial; I'm seeing additional and different coverage in 2019. Here I'm also seeing staff pieces at Forbes where usually we see contributor articles, suggesting the company really warrants that level of coverage. Worth keeping on the merits. DavidWestT (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DavidWestT:, I see you approved the article at AfC. It is difficult to judge the value and reliability of the sources, but I note that the company only started up in 2017. The company installs cartop screens at a single garage in San Francisco, and its 110,000 hours of drive time is a minute number, representing for example, 1100 cars at 100 hours each. This is a small, local company and I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Sources are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Also fails WP:PROMO. Launch publicity does not equate to encyclopedia notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Below the line comment). Poking at this one a bit more, it does look like WSJ covered them a few times (e.g. here: [12]) at length). I see some other in-depth coverage as well that's not on the page at [13].

I respect your opinions, though, on any consensus. DavidWestT (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, at least not yet. All the refs are about its own publicity for itself, and WP shouldn't be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Gentry[edit]

Alistair Gentry (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 about a fringe character. Tagged for notability since 2014. No refs in the article, before showing nothing of note. Szzuk (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - From a search, he seems to have done a lot, but still doesn't seem to meet WP:Artist or WP:NBIO. ManicSpider (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A check of WorldCat shows thatnone of their works are held in more than 2 or 3 libraries; this doesn;t cover all thegenres, but is I think representative. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 27 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 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport[edit]

Spoilsport (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:GNG. Page is linked by one non-list article (and that only in passing), and the character only appears three times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or List of X-Men enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not independently notable. Does not meet my criteria for a list entry. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - straightforward failure of WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources provided to justify list entry. I reckon, given the generic name, a redirect would be a mistake as well. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the subject in depth. Do not redirect to the Marvel character list since "spoilsport" is a common expression that no one would associate with a character this obscure. The Marvel wikia can host this content just fine. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:47, 26 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 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sise-Neg[edit]

Sise-Neg (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:GNG. Publication history section literally says the character has only appeared in two issues (according to Marvel Wikia he also appears in an issue of What If, bringing the issue count to three). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Marvel Premiere. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not independently notable, and not notable within the fiction. The character lists are not meant to be exhaustive, and I see no reason to retain this information. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - straightforward failure of WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources to justify merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 23 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vieha[edit]

Mark Vieha (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)

Unsourced since 2007. He is mentioned many places, but I can't find significant coverage anywhere. (For what it's worth, someone claiming to be the subject has asked for its deletion.) —teb728 t c 06:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:59, 20 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina Suno[edit]

Sarina Suno (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 declined a speedy on this article, but in trying to find reliable sources to bolster the article, I'm not getting as much as I'd like.

The sources I added, as well as a couple I didn't, mention winning competitions, but they don't say _what_ competitions. Are the sources enough for notability? I'm leaning towards no, but it's not as unambiguous as I'd like. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 須能 沙里奈, if you're searching in Japanese. Bakazaka (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't find the requisite coverage to pass WP:MUSICBIO in either English or Japanese (thanks for the translation). SITH (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably. I have added a couple of sources and more information from them. I think she may meet WP:GNG, if those sources are considered reliable - and she may meet WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", as she has released two or more albums with Victor Entertainment, and another with Strictly Rhythm Records. The competitions she won seem to have been while she was a student in Japan, so they are probably not really notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: RebeccaGreen's sources should be discussed. If no discussion follows this re-list, I would recommend closing as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. I checked the references added. SOMA looks to be reliable, but not sure about Millennium. It also looks like the articles are taking the information about her from her own website. I searched for more information about her contact with Victor Entertainment, since it just says she signed a contract with them and not that the albums she put out are on that label, and found no mention of her with them. I checked Amazon and nothing listed there is with the Victor label. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching for "須能 沙里奈" resulted in this Yomitime article, which covers the subject in-depth. Combined with the Soma article currently cited, this should be enough for an article. feminist (talk) 15:05, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFL President's Cup[edit]

RFL President's Cup (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)

There's no indication that the cup is notable. Sources largely are not independent, not reliable, or don't cover the competition in any detail; most are WP:ROUTINE game reports. Multiple sources don't even confirm the specific statements they're cited for. Major parts of the prose don't come with any sources whatsoever, indicating original research, the removal of which would amount to practically blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced article detailing multiple competitions featuring in an overall festival of rugby league.Fleets (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fleets, how is this well-sourced? Please point out a single reliable third-party source that covers the competition in some detail (ie is not just a game report) and backs up the content in the article that it's cited for. Huon (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 20 references and four external links. I'm not saying that the individual teams are inherently notable, but you will struggle to get the Telegraph to put on a match report for England Students v Lionesses. It is a history of an amateur set of competitions, with sources that are appropriate to that. No-one is saying this is the FA Cup, but it is appropriately sourced for what it is.Fleets (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you haven't actually checked the sources. Having many footnotes and external links doesn't make something well-sourced. For example, references #6 and #9 are the same, and the source confirms neither of the two statements it's cited for. That's not the only problem by far. Huon (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced with a number of independent sources, including an independent weekly sports newspaper with a significant circulation - Rugby League & League Express - and its associated website. Additional sources from the newspaper will be provided shortly. Regional publications are also now cited.

The article has now had edits from a number of highly regarded Wikipedia editors, their adoption of which demonstrates the value of the article.

This competition is far more notable and better sourced than other sports' competitions that have extensive wikipedia coverage. Examples available on request. Feederdave (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I advise to check what the sources actually say. The page now cites the BBC, for example, but the BBC article doesn't mention this competition. Huon (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correct the BBC article references the move to Manchester for the England Women's squad. But not every citation needs to reference the competiton, in this example its adding credance to narrative of the evolution of the women's pathway. Feederdave (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, sources need to reference the subject of the article. See WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. Huon (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its illustrating a different factual point. Not every source on wikipedia has the article title in it. Your earlier comment about sections of prose not being referenced conflicts your point now; this prose is now properly referenced but now you don't accept it?

As stated previously, there are thousands of less notable sports competitions with little to no independent sources of information on wiki. This competition IS notable on account of its status as being for national representative teams and the fact that is is referenced in multiple national and regional titles and web sources run by government departments (ministry of defence). Feederdave (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other sports competitions, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And regarding the referecing of the content, what's written about the RFL President's Cup still isn't well-sourced. Example: "The women's competition was discontinued following the RFL revamping the international player pathway process and introducing a National Performance Programme with a focus on talent identification, player skill development, physical competences and the creation of a performance coaching environment[1] in advance of the RFL opening a National Rugby League Centre in Manchester[2] which will provide facilities for the England Women's team to train at." Neither of the sources mentions the President's Cup (or Association's Cup); thus they cannot say anything about the discontinuation of the women's competition. The remainder of that sample might be better-referenced but is off-topic. Huon (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hodgson, Phil (2017-02-22). "RFL confirms upgraded Performance Pathways". Total Rugby League. Retrieved 2019-01-04.
  2. ^ "Etihad Campus: RFL to relocate with creation of new National Rugby League Centre". BBC Sport. 2018-03-05. Retrieved 2019-01-04.

But the rest you have no issue with? Feederdave (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with pretty much the entire page. In case it's kept (which it should not be, IMO), I'll do some cleanup, ie removal of unsourced, unreliably-sourced and off-topic content. Nothing much will remain, as I said in the nominating statement above. Huon (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the sources you believe to be unreliable, so I can clarify for you? Feederdave (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of the current revision, sources 1, 2, 5, 6, and 13 are clearly not reliable third-party sources. Passing mentions include sources 3, 4, and 7. Entirely irrelevant are sources 8, 9, and 10. Sources 11 and 12 don't say what they are cited for. All others are WP:ROUTINE game reports that do not discuss the Cup itself.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:12, 20 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Spangler[edit]

Amy Spangler (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)

BLP without references other than her own material Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Believe her writings allow her to meet WP:NAUTHOR.Sandals1 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of her books, Breastfeeding: A Parent’s Guide, is now in its 9th edition, has been in print since 1985, is the subject of multiple reviews, and is recommended / given out to new parents. It's in nearly 200 libraries, according to Worldcat, and has been translated into Spanish (I haven't looked for other languages). She has a chapter in a book called Core Curriculum for Lactation Consultant Practice, which is in over 225 libraries, and is a study guide for the international board certified lactation consultant exam. She's also been president of an international association. Those achievements seem to fall between WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR, and I think between them she meets notability guidelines. I have added some references (reviews) to the article, and will try to add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be surprised if she were not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is notable by virtue of her books--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is notable due to her books and position as president of the International Lactation Consultant Association -- Circlecubed (talk) 19:49, 21 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. There was a substantial expansion on 25 January, which somewhat calls into question earlier opinions. Sandstein 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross of Honor[edit]

Southern Cross of Honor (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)

Despite some effort I have had difficulty finding anything that indicates this is a notable award. It seems no more notable then any number of other minor and society awards given out by members. Nor can I find any meaningful coverage to indicate its awarding is considered news worthy. It seems less notable then the Silver Centennial Pin Award from Haddonfield Lions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, I have also struggled to find any reliable sources or significant coverage outside the United Daughters of the Confederacy site. It does not appear notable enough to have its own article. The section on the United Daughters of the Confederacy appears to be more appropriate for the limited information we have. Garuda28 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I have only ever heard of it in connection with the UDC (in fact I had never heard of it until I read about it on our article about the UDC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note the GAR medal does not have an article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if it did it looks like it would also meet WP:GNG. Out of curiosity I was just looking up the GAR medal, and its history is surprisingly interesting (the design was similar enough to the Medal of Honor to piss off quite a few MoH holders). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of your sources is a blog, and being part of a museums collection means nothing, I could donate my collection to a museum. So we are left with a page about its value as an antique (again not really establish any real notability) and some stuff about the use of the emblem (not the medal) on tomb stones, thus this means (at best) merging with List of Confederate monuments and memorials or the UDC page (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two of them are blogs (Tri-City Herald and WaPo), but they are not personal blogs, and fall within the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all the useful information about the medal were brought into one place, the amount of text could easily fit into the larger article about the organization. According to WP:SUBARTICLE, I don't think this medal needed to be spun out into its own article. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Cross of Honor award originated on 13 October 1862 as an act of the Confederate Congress to recognize the courage, valor, and good conduct of officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Confederate Army. Later, this award became the Cross of Military Service, which is awarded to men who, in addition to having a Confederate ancestor, served in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, World War I, or World War II.
I'm pretty sure it is legit. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is not the same award as this one was established in 1899. This is an awarded given by the UDC, not the CSA. Your text may refer to Confederate Medal of Honor Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: It's the same metal. I'm not sure why there are two different dates. The early date certainly makes more sense if it is an award for valor issued during the war. The site I gave does mention the UDC at the top, so the award is definitely connected more to them more than the CSA. Perhaps because the UDC was formed long after the war, either (1) They issued the awards rather than the CSA (or in addition to)--a bit strange, but possible, since the CSA was disbanded (2) They formed a list of issued metals in the absence of the CSA records. This is all speculation on my part. Possibly a call to one of the libraries that has them would easily straighten out the date issue, or maybe some of the RS explains it better. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same? It seems that the Confederate Medal of Honor was never issued, and long after some were minted. By an organisation linked to the UDC. Thus any confusion may be the result of that. Or it may be an attempt to claim false legitimacy by claiming to be something it is not (and evidence they are in fact the same award, other then the UDC's own claims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is the same. [15] only mentions the Southern Cross of Honor. Nowhere does it say anything about the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award. I do not know why you bring up the Confederate Medal of Honor which is not mentioned in the article. We are only talking about the Southern Cross of Honor--the award created by the Confederacy and used by the UDC as mentioned in the article [16]. It's the same award. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this should be an argument for merge anyway, if they are the same why two separate articles?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article I talk about is just the one award the Southern Cross of Honor [17]. It is not two different awards. It does not mention the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award entirely, and not relevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This [[18]] makes it clear they are two separate medals.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That reference talks about multiple different metals. But the only one that matters here is the one award, the Southern Cross of Honor. The WP:RS I provided, [19], clearly mentions it. It is the same metal that we have been discussing as to whether it has WP:RS, and it does indeed, [20] and the RS mentioned above and in the article. It was apparently established by the CSA in 1862 and issued by the UDC in 1899. It has nothing to do with the Confederate Medal of Honor that is related to the sons--not the daughters. Let's just focus on the RS for the Southern Cross of Honor and not worry about the Confederate Medal of Honor which is a different unrelated metal, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1862 act of the Confederate Congress simply authorized the issuance of unnamed decorations (medals and badges) for bravery. However, due to wartime exigencies, no medals were actually given out (except for the Davis Guard Medal, a special case). Instead, after a year had passed, the Army decided to create a Roll of Honor to recognize deserving officers and men (and one woman). After the war, the UDC created the Southern Cross of Honor which was given out to anyone who served honorably.
It is comparable to the Grand Army of the Republic Medal, issued by the fraternal organization the Grand Army of the Republic. Note that we don't have an article about the GAR Medal, even though it is arguably more prominent. Note further that the SCV also claims that their CMOH was authorized by the same 1862 law, even though they did not begin minting their medal until 1977. Since the text of the law was open ended, I suppose that any entity could start issuing medals and say they were authorized to do so. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the source you provided, "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950"[21], includes an introduction which you're quoting. The first part of that intro is copied verbatim from the UDC's website.[22] It's likely that the rest of the introduction is also sourced to the UDC. So I do not think it qualifies as an independent, secondary source.Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a nn commemorative award; some of the article is self-sourced to UDC. The other sources are in passing or blogs. "Confederate Medal of Honor" redirect to Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans), established in 1977. So it's not the same award. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and redirect to the Daughters article if any reliable sources exist. Every substantive source currently in this article is affiliated or unreliable (and in some cases both). Guy (Help!) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United Daughters of the Confederacy. To whatever extent there's a claim of notability here, WP:NOPAGE applies. It fits very sensibly into the parent article. This article appears to rely almost exclusively on primary sources, so there's not really anything to merge. Don't see any real need to delete the history, but also don't feel strongly about it. At very least the further reading section could be useful when trying to add sources to the main article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I added a couple secondary refs to the UDC article. Redirect, rather than merge, seems most sensible now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I see quite a few votes for Redirect or Delete after multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources on the subject have been identified:
  1. Mississippi Library archives: Giambrone, Jeff T. (2013). "Southern Cross of Honor Records at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History". The Primary Source. 32 (2). doi:10.18785/ps.3202.03. Retrieved June 23, 2018., which includes the entire article about the Southern Cross as a PDF.
  2. Library of Virginia: "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950 United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor, Records 43275". ead.lib.virginia.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  3. Peterson, Bo. "Three iron crosses honoring Confederate veterans have been stolen from historic Sheldon church near Beaufort". Post and Courier. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  4. Library of Southern Florida: "United Daughters of the Confederacy Medal Collection, 1899-1968 | UCF Special Collections". ucfarchon.fcla.edu. Retrieved 2019-01-07.
  5. Tucker, Spencer C. (2013-09-30). American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [6 volumes]: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851096824.
  6. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs Administration, National Cemetery. "Pre-World War I Era Headstones and Markers - National Cemetery Administration". www.cem.va.gov. Retrieved 2019-01-07.:
The inscription on the special style for Civil War Confederate is also limited. The Southern Cross of Honor is automatically inscribed at the top. The name is arched, followed by abbreviated military organization and dates of birth and death. No additional items can be inscribed. If a flat marker is desired for a Confederate soldier, the Southern Cross of Honor can be inscribed if requested... [includes picture]
7. "Code of Virginia". Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved 14 June 2016.:
§ 18.2-176. Unauthorized wearing or displaying on motor vehicles of any button, insignia or emblem of certain associations or societies or of Southern Cross of Honor.
* * *
(b) No person shall wear any Southern Cross of Honor when not entitled to do so by the regulations under which such Crosses of Honor are given.
8. Inscoe, John. The Civil War in Georgia. University of Georgia Press, 2011. p. 203. -- Page 203 is here
9. City of Grove, Oklahoma: [23]
10. James Madison University: [24]
11. Kentucky Historical Society: [25]
12. numerous items coming from this Washington University in St. Louis library search: [26]
I do not understand how you can vote that way, when notability has been established by these sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that library calalouge entries are RS for notability (especialy as they are donated collection). Nor is a law, it shows it exists, not that it is notable. Not (in fact) would the fact people are allowed to have it inscribed on crosses. In fact most of this look pretty trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per above—fails GNG. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its part of history. UDC was once an important organization that gave this award to veterans having distinguished themselves in the service of the Confederacy, like Belle Boyd. You will find it on markers and monuments. Its protected by Virginia law. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true, but none of that is related to notability for Wikipedia purposes. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be notable enough for an article. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entirely due to the hefty research performed by the editors above. It looks like there is now a great deal more material to add to the page, making it much more useful to readers. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to keep though. It must satisfy WP:GNG, which it still does not appear to do. Garuda28 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. I've reviewed the sources in the article and none of them that are independent are about the medal specifically. They just mention its existence and perhaps list honorees. The best source listed above devotes only three short sentences to it.[27] Therefore, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG. It would be more suitable as a section of the main UDC article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found additional sources and added to the article. With other changes since the start of this AfD, the article is now probably developed enough to pass WP:GNG. Mobi Ditch (talk) 10:14, 25 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. Good arguments on both sides but I see a slim consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Ammons, III Award for Animal Welfare[edit]

Thomas M. Ammons, III Award for Animal Welfare (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)

Local award, apparently being given to local people,and ,as one would expect, with only local sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not enough significant coverage. As nominator pointed out, all coverage has been in local news souces. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) WP:GEOSCOPE says an event MAY not be notable if only covered in local sources, so it is not sufficient just to point to local sources and say "not notable". 2) The "local" media we are talking about here includes essentially state-wide media (e.g., The Virginia Pilot, Virginia's largest daily). 3) Appears to be awarded every year, has a relatively high profile based on who it is named after. Meets WP:GNG on the basis of the sourcing already provided. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FOARP's arguments. I think it could be argued that the topic doesn't pass notability, but the opposite could also be argued per sources such as The Virginia Pilot. Being on the cusp like this, I don't think eliminating the topic (and easy opportunity for future improvement) would benefit Wikipedia at large. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Had to debate this one with myself a bit, but in the end, DGG is right in that this award has no reach outside the local area, so it seems. Sounds like he is a great guy, good judge and all that, but that isn't the criteria. To be notable requires that the award has a demonstrated (by the sources) impact outside a local area, and it doesn't establish that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GEOSCOPE isn't applicable as this is an award, not an event. Purely local coverage of local awards in the local section of a regional paper is not enough to establish notability. The size of the paper does not matter, it is the audience that matters. Also, just on the gut test, this should be deleted: this is an award that is less than 2 years old. There simply isn't any way that it could achieve enough importance in less than 24 months to actually be notable. Our guidelines are best read with common sense which dictates the deletion of this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 27 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_20&oldid=1142614132"