Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 January	22 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Axys Adventures: Truth Seeker[edit]

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

Non notable video game that fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article has a Press Release as a reference which is a primary source. In my WP:BEFORE I only found 2 reviews on unreliable sources on familyfriendlygaming.com (does not even have an reviewer named) and christcenteredgamer.com (author named as ccgr, enough said) which fail WP:VG/RS (both were in the article). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing more Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 22 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. clpo13_(talk) 20:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verge (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Non-notable, article was previously written as an advertisement. Article only stands on two reliable sources, with the previous dominant ones being non-reputable or not even mentioning the cryptocurrency at all. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mashable, Bleeping Computer, and The Register covering the April attack. Several RS for the MindGeek partnership on the talk page. Bleeping Computer and ZDNet covering the May attack. Mashable and Bleeping Computer might not be the best, but The Register and ZDNet are listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as generally reliable. Џ 06:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convinced by the hack reports making its target notable, nor the promotional hookup ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Џ. Balkywrest (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources. Additionally, the fact that the piece was previously an ad should have no bearing on any current proposal to delete. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with sources mentioned plus my own searches. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:22, 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 keep. Consensus seems clear that WP:BLP1E does not apply and that there is enough significant coverage about the subject from various reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. clpo13_(talk) 20:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hbomberguy[edit]

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

This person is presently only notable for a widely noted charity stream, thus failing WP:BLP1E. Most of the other info outside of this stream is primary-sourced, and thus not appropriate. Masem (t) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The article has multiple outside sources outside of this event in which he is given reception and recognition by news sources. However, I do believe that more sources should be added, as there are definitely more that are not cited in the article but should be. Nihkee (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were about the event rather than the person running it, that might give more reason to keep it, but even then, the event itself is just one thing and wouldn't have a dedicated article on it. The event has been noted at a few pages on related topics (and because of that event I was prompted to complete Video games and charity which includes that event). But being only one event, we shouldn't have a bio page just for that. --Masem (t) 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the charity all information as appropriate, per WP:BLP1E. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Refocus to be about the stream itself and then we can discuss merging. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, following efforts to improve it and find sources beyond the charity stream. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with main focus on the charity stream; the stream would probably be notable enough to have its own page but I don't support a merge on that because of the fact that this guy does have other notability (even if just a little) as a vlogging gamer - and the only gamer to be recognised as a fundraiser etc. by the Scottish government (strange, but notable). I am not a gamer, and I'd heard of him before the stream, so his notability must transcend the niche. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like BLP1E turns in the other direction for this article. The individual's role in this single event was very well documented and substantial, with his involvement discussed at length in a wide array of reliable sources listed on the page already. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article has notability outside of the charity stream, mostly for his YouTube videos, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. It also passes WP:GNG. Additionally, I've expanded the article with some more independent sources since the nomination for deletion if anyone would like to take another look. Linguistical (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not WP:BLP1E, his youtube work has been acclaimed by ~~Forbes~~, Polygon (twice), Slate, and nominated 3 times by 3 different experts in the field on BFI's Sight and Sound. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Only as a note, Forbes contributor sites are not usable RSes. --Masem (t) 00:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I edited my contribution and added relevant links. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources don't say anything about him outside the videos. This kind of narrow coverage usually results in deleting the article. wumbolo ^^^ 19:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ihaveacatonmydesk and WP:GNG for being covered in multiple sources for multiple events. Proposer is likely only familiar with the recent "charity stream" and not Brewis' other notabilities. Article may need a title change too. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick scan on google news shows he comes up in articles not regarding the charity event from sources as varied as Forbes and Polygon. Rab V (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can find only passing mentions in coverage prior to the charity. I only found this, but it comes from a publication of questionable reliability. WP:IKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some links from reliable sources to my contribution if you want to check those out. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his general notability before his event is pretty substantial enough. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable entertainer and commentator, charity stream or not. Additionally, this is not a badly written article, and certainly isn't unimprovable. This shouldn't even be candidate for deletion. Acolossus | Talk | Contributions 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Ihaveacatonmydesk ShimonChai (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of the media coverage about the charity stream discusses Brewis and his videos in depth (e.g. [1]). As others have pointed out, his videos have been subject to previous Polygon coverage ([2][3]) and I don't understand Wumbolo's remark, The sources don't say anything about him outside the videos, because this is an article about a YouTuber. Coverage of his YouTube videos is equivalent to coverage about him. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. You can try and make a WP:ENT argument but we need WP:BASIC coverage about the person to have an article about the person. wumbolo ^^^ 10:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current article (and my rationale) substantiates that BASIC is met, but the sources which discuss his videos are discussing him as an internet figure, which is what the article is about. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my impression of the sources prior to the charity. wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you expecting? Even famous polticians may only have a one line section on their "Personal life" perhaps stating they are married with two children, with the rest of the article all being about things they did, rather than about them.--Pontificalibus 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited are obviously narrowly focused on his videos. They do not talk about him in general. wumbolo ^^^ 20:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate question: What is the difference between a small but critically praised author whose books are not in a series and whose press coverage is narrowly focused on their books and this situation here? If the only connection between the works is their creator, and the works are praised, but the sole author is merely mentioned as the author but otherwise not discussed, how is the Wikipedia community to categorize that? --Amorilinguae (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorilinguae: Hbomberguy is not an author. wumbolo ^^^ 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have pointed out, there are multiple secondary sources covering not only the charity stream but other aspects of his work. Fairly cut and dry. If there's any problem with the current state of wikipedia its the aversion some editors seem to have classing "new media" personas and topics as being notable. Niche subjects in established mediums will be uncontested, but subject with a contemporary online following in the hundreds of thousands and multiple secondary sources will be nominated for deletion... BlackholeWA (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed, it's just that editors have become willing to accept articles which say absolutely nothing useful about the subject, and completely ignore WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm quite confused behind the rationale here. As far as I can see, this article doesn't fit the "anti-guidelines" in BLP1E at all. It has other sources; the subject has been notable for at least quite a while prior. (The other parts of BLP1E don't even apply at all.)Nihkee (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The prior coverage is a little about some of his videos, but nothing about him personally or about his career in general. The AfD nom of Boogie2988 should've been borderline, but it was unanimously kept (except the nominator). Many YouTubers receive very narrowly focused coverage on one or more videos, but regardless of the depth of the coverage, we need some context to be able to write an article per WP:WHYN. Of course, there are also specific notability guidelines, but we can't mix different guidelines to have some rationale to keep. Some participants here have invoked WP:CREATIVE, but that's usually not invoked in YouTube-related discussions. My primary concern is whether the article is about a living person or a channel – we have to be careful when discussing the former. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about both the person and the channel. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bilorv. Aimeec110 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ContraPoints also has a YouTube channel, and her channel is very similar to HBomb's in terms of content, impact, and media relevance. If her channel is relevant enough to warrant having a page then HBomb's channel is certainly relevant enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:eaa0:1240:f3ff:fe7d:7900 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. There are many in-depth articles about ContraPoints in the news and magazines outside of one event. There are only a handful of articles mentioning just 1-2 videos by HBG outside of his livestream, see WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 19:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Sourced well enough, and definitely meets GNG. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 08:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets or exceeds standards applied to YouTube personalities with pages on Wikipedia. My concern is that the proposal to delete this page is a knee-jerk reaction to hbomberguy's sudden increase in fame due to an inherently politically charged event. We can revisit this issue later if need be, but when it comes to notability I'm very much of the mind that "I know it when I see it." RexSueciae (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nuclide. clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isodiapher[edit]

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

I propose a redirect to nuclide. This article is little more than a dictionary definition and has little more content on the subject than nuclide, and I have not found any reliable sources (books, journal articles) that provide useful content for expansion beyond a definition. It also has been tagged for a lack of sources for over eight years. As such, this topic fails WP:GNG and does not deserve a standalone article, though examples of the use of the term (such as the article's one reference, but not the many instances of WP:CIRCULAR) warrant a redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to and Merge with nuclide. The two referenced sentences in Isodiapher would be appropriate for the Types of nuclides section, alongside the definitions of Isobar and Isotone. - Syd (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge as per Syd Midnight. --MaoGo (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Franciscans[edit]

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

Unsourced, arbitrary list of names. Technopat (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unelaborated use of the word “arbitrary” makes me think you don’t understand that this is a school alumni list. Can you present an actual deletion rationale? postdlf (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alumni lists do not need their own references if a person's affiliation is referenced in the article on that person. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and regardless, whether a notable person went to a notable school is clearly sourceable, so that issue could be fixed for this list. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and it should be fixed, but that process doesn't require deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the obvious lack of sources —which no one disputes, and which could, of course, be "solved" by simply adding {{Unreferenced}} and sending it to join the myriad other unreferenced Wikipedia pages—, this list is clearly "arbitrary", as in "random choice" of items, with zero reliable sources (possibly based on original research). While there's no objection either to school lists or to overlapping categories/lists, per se, this is precisely the kind of list better substituted by the use of categories, as in the existing Category:People educated at Instituto San Isidro, which covers this perfectly adequately and effectively rules out the "need" for this unsourced (arbitrary?) list. Notwithstanding the obvious fact that a biographee shouldn’t be included in a category if there is no actual reference in the article itself to substantiate the claim. Regarding the above rationale for the Keep ("Alumni lists do not need their own references if a person's affiliation is referenced in the article on that person."), that's precisely the problem: before opening this AfD I took the time to check twelve of the linked biography articles on this list —at random— and there was no mention whatsoever of the biographee in question having had any association with the school, except for the added category. Nor, unsurprisingly, any reference to that effect... (Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria: “Selection criteria… should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed… it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item…”).
Furthermore, the list currently lacks a lead section (Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Style: "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body…”).
By the way, although a minor detail, it's actually pretty symptomatic of the problems this particular list raises: an image caption that states "Former pupils of Instituto San Isidro are called Old Franciscans, after the school's re-establisher, Saint Francis Xavier". A claim that is not only unsourced, but also doubtful, possibly misleading or, at best, open to debate. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, completely standard list of notable alumni from a notable educational institute. The nominator raises nothing but fixable issues and inapt adjectives. Add sources, retitle it for clarity, add an intro, remove factually inaccurate entries... See WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid topic for an article. List needs improvement, by the addition of references, not deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List of people from x school is a relatively common, such as List of Old Etonians born in the 20th century, List of Old Geelong Grammarians, List of Old Wykehamists, List of Old Alleynians and more. I don't believe we should be deleting a single example of these "arbitrary list of names" unless we can establish a consensus of action for all such arbitrary lists which should not be kept for other reasons. With that said, as User:Technopat said, these may be better suited as a category, such as Category:People educated at Gordonstoun, but I don't believe we should be deleting lists before categorization - the data would be useful in the process. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Better suited as a category” doesn’t mean anything here, particularly when this list is already performing at least two functions that are impossible for a category. Each format has its advantages and limitations, which is the whole point of WP:NOTDUP, and part of sound informational organization (not to mention basic web design) is providing multiple avenues of navigation and indexing. So let’s please stop suggesting that we can do only one thing when we can and should do many. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe problem is that not all of them are alumni. Victor Hugo? According to this article, he studied in San Antón school run by the Escolapios. Maybe he just went to S. Isidro to take exams (as a venue). There is no reference to the term "Old Franciscans". Franciscans, at least in Spain, refers to the Order of St. Francis, and if such a group of alumni did exist, in Spain they would be called "Javieristas" or "Xavieristas" referring to St. Francis Xavier. Agree that the best thing would be to include the personalites proven to have studied there in a category and this list should be deleted or moved to a sandbox and use it to confirm that they did in fact study there (adding a reference in the respective article of each individual) before including them in a category. As it stands, this list is totally misleading, including individudals who may not have studied there at all and maybe just went to give a speech or take exams. --Maragm (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been much better brought up as a talk page discussion rather than a deletion discussion that tends to lead to a yes/no answer. There seem to be at least three issues here: whether this should be a separate article from Instituto San Isidro, if so what should its title be, and whether each individual name should be on the list. The first is a matter for a merge discussion, the second for a move discussion and the third for editing based on reliable sources. None of them require an admin to hit the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it is heavily reformed. As it currently stands, title included, the list includes dubious information, not necessarily verifiable either here or in the independent articles.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, so the bottom line is that this AfD has been opened in the context of a major overhaul, including rewriting/wikifying/removing unsourced nonsense, that has been carried out on "related" articles by several Wikipedians of long-standing reputation over the past few months at Wikipedia in Spanish and in Catalan, overhauls that have already resulted in the category at Commons being deleted for the same reasons exposed here.

As can be seen here (Instituto San Isisdro) and here (Reales Estudios de San Isidro), the original article pages from which this list purportedly derives, this major overhaul, basically includes eliminating cruft, when not downright nonsense/possible hoaxes, including contributions from the likes of "I’m a student here and I know what I’m talking about"…

As I already have my work cut out trying to make the "related" main articles mentioned above fit for Wikipedia in English, I cordially invite any user who still insists on the encyclopaedic relevance of this list to carry out the necessary work —which everyone seems to agree on— required to make this list conform, even minimally, to Wikipedia policies, including providing the relevant references —reliable sources— in the original biographical articles linked here. I'll be happy to help out to the best of my abilities, if anyone has a specific doubt, or regarding translating of any available sources, but it, in the light of all the other stuff that needs doing, this list certainly ain’t a priority for me and, as it stands, is pure unadulterated original research and should not, as far as I'm concerned, remain at Wikipedia.

The basic problem, as evidenced by the absolute lack of references, is that the whole (include here the adjective that you consider least "inapt") page is flawed since its inception. As pointed out above, the sui generis term "Old Franciscans" simply does not exist except when referring to "old", in at least of the meanings of the word, members of the Franciscans, who, of course, never had anything to do with that particular building in Madrid, at any moment in history (despite the lovely image currently adorning the page showing Francis Xavier, a Jesuit).

The accumulation of some of the errors can be partly understood as arising from the fact that the 16th century building (or complex) has housed several different education institutions, including the Colegio Imperial de Madrid and the Instituto San Isidro, established in 1845 and the forerunner of today’s Superior Technical School of Architecture of Madrid, the latter occupying part of the premises from 1847 to 1936. However, claims such as King Juan Carlos and Queen Fabilo studying there are downright wrong —like many of the others on the list, they did not study there: they simply went to the building to sit the public exams—. The case of Victor Hugo is even worse as, according to most (all?) reliable sources, he attended the Escuelas Pías (Piarists) de San Antón, not the Instituto San Isidro nor the Colegio Imperial de Madrid). Not to mention the case of Cervantes, thankfully deleted already from the list before I took this on.

What really worries me, however, is that in the light of what increasingly appears to be simply a hoax —at least two of the main contributors to the list ([4] and [5]) have been blocked indefinitely— can have survived here, the Wikipedia that is most closely monitored and protected, for more than two years... I should have probably have better proposed it for speedy delete, —although I thought that a discussion (among the members of the community at large, not just users who already have the list on their watchlist…) was called for—. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should have somewhere on Wikipedia a list of alumni of this school, but, in the light of what has been written above, I see that the title of this article is unsubstantiated (so it should not be a redirect, besides the common sense that "Old Franciscan" must have many other potential meanings) and that the content cannot be trusted. Without the title or the content there will be nothing left to keep. The article about the school is neither long enough to need splitting nor so short that to include verified notable alumni there would unbalance it, so it would be best if those who are interested could include sourced entries at Instituto San Isidro#Notable alumni and only split it out into a separate article if and when it becomes large. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Phil.--Latemplanza (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article introducing a name (Old Franciscans) that does not seem to exist anywhere but in Wikipedia is a straightforward violation of the most basic Wikipedia principles. --Discasto (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, In light of the additional information provided by Technopat. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Old Franciscan isn't even a term on Wikipedia and the article appears to be mostly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:59, 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 National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Pharmacy[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Suggests, without evidence, that these boards exist outside the USA. Nothing in the article which isn't in the article National Association of Boards of Pharmacy Rathfelder (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. Needless duplication of content, not to mention that this article is basically an inadequate WP:DICDEF. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 28 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Wallace[edit]

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

Could find no reliable sources. Current references in the article are social media and unreliable production company sites. Subject appears to be a production assistant and actress with minor roles with no significant coverage. It may happen later in her career, but for now, she does not appear to be notable. Fails notability guidelines. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no major roles in film or theater. And, as would be expected, so significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. References given in the article either are not reliable sources, not significant coverage or they do not mention her at all. Google searches not finding anything better. noq (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have had any significant roles and what she has done is largely with "Solent Productions" at Solent University which she attended till 2016. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, Fails WP:NACTOR. PlotHelpful (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:52, 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 delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Puravankara[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Nothing apart from routine trivial announcements, PR-stuff and non-intellectually-independent interviews. ∯WBG^converse 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine businessperson BIO; being the 94th wealthiest Indian (with access to PR agents untroubled by ethics considerations?) does not qualify; WP is not a list of wealthy people. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:PROMO with suspicions of undeclared paid editing, borderline G11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable, run of the mill business person. One mention (#96) in a list article does not establish the subject's notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that he is quite wealthy, while insufficient evidence on its own, will tend to suggest there will be coverage about him, even if, due to our lack of understanding of Hindi, we struggle to find it. However, there is some that we can find that while not sufficient to prove notability hints that there are things out there. See here, for him appointing his son to a position he held[6][7]. With that said, he doesn't seem to be present on the Indian Wikipedia, and an article about his company was recently rejected in draft space; in the end, I have to conclude the delete is probably the right thing to do. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Atlantic306. PlotHelpful (talk) 15:49, 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 keep. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nava Nalanda High School[edit]

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

Lack of sources, I cannot find any good sources fails WP:N and WP:GNG ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 17:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This school is not without coverage, in terms of sports results (Sportskeeda, 22 February 2016) and among several schools surveyed in respect of exam results (Times of India, 7 June 2018) and reviews of public health actions (Times of India, 28 October 2017). AllyD (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this school exists, and presumably the article can be improved using local sources. John from Idegon (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is an existing secondary school, and I don't really know cricket but I do think "The School scored 844 runs in 45 overs against Gyan Bharati Vidyalaya, on 22 February 2016, to set a record score for a Cricket Association of Bengal school cricket tournament" (with source) is quite extraordinary. --Doncram (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the school is notable and has been covered by multiple reliable media outlets. A quick search reveals sufficient coverage to confirm that this isn't one of the low quality spam articles that abound in this particular topic. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 10:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What FR sez. Many regional RSes and this is quite-a-famed school.∯WBG^converse 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to understand this nomination. This is a well-established school (over 50 years) that educates to Grade 12. There seems plenty of material about that meets WP:GNG apart from anything that a research for local sources might throw up. Just Chilling (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - less than one hour before this article was nominated for deletion, an IP blanked most of the content, here. This included removing notable alumni. Just Chilling (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Just Chilling passes WP:GNG and I have added its official website and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 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. clpo13_(talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emiway Bantai[edit]

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

Sources fail to show how this person meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG - sources are a click-bait source, link to the youtube channel and a quick blurb about some trashtalking, more because of the other person involved. The article mentions a minor role in a film, again, not enough for notability (see WP:NACTOR). Ravensfire (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - removed the clickbait source as it patently fails WP:RS. Ravensfire (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this article is kept, the title should be moved to "Bilal (rapper)" because that is his stage name. The article creator may have been confused by other stuff already at Bilal. Regardless, my vote is to delete because almost all sources on this guy are the typical retail/streaming sites that merely prove his existence, while he has no significant coverage in his own right from reliable sources. He has gotten a little coverage for a feud with a different rapper, as noticed by the nominator, but that doesn't cut it when you haven't been noticed for anything else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravensfire - I can't find any external coverage that's citable for this guy's existence. I wish him luck with his career, and perhaps one day he'll be worth our attention. Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article's subject may be sensational at the moment but he is certainly not important. The article mentions he has 2 million subs on youtube. While that is certainly a decent figure, retaining the article in wikipedia mainspace will also guarantee an article to other non-notable entities with a comparable sub count. Hence i vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The alchemist reborn (talk • contribs) 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 delete. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Sanjay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:BLP which had only two minor roles anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film is almost never enough to create notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to establish notability, less than 5 sources of which are passing mentions. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:43, 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. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Household insecticide D-20[edit]

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

This is a non-notable commercial product. It has been long-orphaned, it has no independent sources, and a web search turns up nothing of significance (mostly just a handful of online retail listings). This topic fails WP:N and WP:GNG. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator described the problems very well. I'd support a redirect to the manufacturer's page, except the manufacturer doesn't have a page, and I'm not particularly convinced of its notability, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am amazed that this non notable product should have had a page in Wikipedia since 2006, an advertisement placed there by a single purpose creator. Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable product. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:49, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samip Mallick[edit]

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

While this archivist has been interviewed in some media, I do not see any reason for him to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Most likely self-promotion. WP:BLP applies. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Mallick is one of the go-to experts on South Asian American history, important in the field. I've worked on the page, and it's not self-promotion. (Asian American history is a relatively niche field, so as an editor, I'd appreciate suggestions on how to improve the article to better indicate notability.) Anirvan (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The subject does not appear to be notable. The majority of the coverage I found are about the archive.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:16, 28 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. No indication of notability provided, happy to restore if additi9nal sources come to light. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Omran Club[edit]

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

No reference is given Shringhringshring (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any references since they're likely to only be in Arabic, which is a really difficult language for me to search in. That being said, they did lose some match 8-0 in November according to the external link, which I believe technically counts as a reference. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 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) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 22 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last Church of Order[edit]

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

Church in Zambia with only 3,000 members. Can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had hoped to be able to find some information on this church online but I found nothing. It seems to have been founded by "Philip Tembo" but I can find nothing about him either, apart from social media and his own blog. Fails WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. Should have been closed eariler but here we are. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next Japanese general election[edit]

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

WP:BALL: It seems that Japan has an unstable House of Representatives. 云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 13:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, primarily because the argument for deletion is not even explained nor does it match customary practice and guidelines in WP. "Individual scheduled or expected future events" certain to take place, even if at an unspecified date, do not fall into the CRYSTALBALL category, and unless the nom cares to explain how it won't, it is obvious a Japanese general election will take place no later than October 2021 and that opinion polling is indeed being carried out ahead of such event. There is even a naming convention guideline where such events are specifically covered: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election". Impru20^talk 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Standard practice to have articles on the next election for countries, cf. Next United Kingdom general election etc. Number 5 7 13:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Number 57 (talk · contribs) Mélencron (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- TOOSOON means that for a topic to merit an article in Wikipedia, we must wait until it is verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources and not before that. It does not apply to future (and certain-to-happen) events which are already notable on their own. Impru20^talk 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We know there will very, very, very probably be a next Japanese general election. Reliable sources are saying things about it. We have "Next ___ general election" articles for numerous countries. And, if nothing else, meets WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bondegezou: what are those sources (WP:MUSTBESOURCES) and what are they saying about the election? Because right now the article cites none of them. It's just a skeleton that says that elections happen in Japan. As it stands, it could be redirected to Elections in Japan. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are >100 sources at Opinion polling for the next Japanese general election alone! Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Impru20. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable article; it is customary for Wikipedia to have articles on future elections at unspecified dates: see Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. Cscescu (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason at all for deleting this notable page. KingTintin (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a bunch of articles about general elections from different countries. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:14, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olufemi O. Okenla[edit]

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

There are a number of problems with the article. The person lacks notability, the only valid sources suggest that he is only known for his involvement in the building of a hotel run as a franchise for the Ibis hotel chain, which cannot be considered notable by itself. The sourcing in the article is poor, for the most part the sources given are either unreliable, or the information not given in the sources, or they are puff pieces, or passing mentions. It therefore fails WP:GNG. The writer of the article also appears to have some relation with the person concerned since they uploaded the photo of the person that they claimed they owned, therefore it smells of WP:PROMOTION or WP:SPIP, or the person had been paid (undisclosed) to write the article, thereby failing WP:PAID. Hzh (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article was created by an SPA, but the real problem is the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails the GNG and I see no other notability standards that he meets.Sandals1 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hzh, thank you for your interest in the article. I noticed that there was a mention about the ownership of the picture of the subject being claimed by me. Well, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and there are so many policies that are sometimes confusing. The picture was released with permission for use because I contacted the subject to ask for a picture which he, in turn, had contracted a photographer to take -- however the initial photograph released to me had the photographer's signature on it and he has since sent a mail to @permissons to give permission. Also, his only claim to notability as you mentioned isn't about the hotel chain alone, did you read all of the article and were you able to read all the sources both web and print? I'm surprised at all of your claims but everyone is entitled to theirs. How well do you know about Nigeria and newsprint over here? You would only be able to find articles referred to in physical archives -- I know I had to find the physical copies of those in print. Your suggestions on improvement will be very welcome. Sola Sorinmade 19:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolaSorinmade (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete. Lack reliable sources and not enough sources to establish notability as of now. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:57, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Komal Aran Atariya[edit]

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

Near-certain product of undisclosed paid editing.

A host of trivial refs verify that he is indeed a singer but that's it. Near zero coverage across RS(s).

Fails the general notability guidelines as well as the subject notability guidelines by a large margin. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to WP:NMUSIC. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs are Youtube, iTunes store, Amazon store, and IMDb. No claim of meeting WP:ENT and no substantial coverage found (in English). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesnt meet general notability. No sources whatsoever PlotHelpful (talk) 20:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hemendra Aran[edit]

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

Near-certain product of undisclosed paid editing. Visible attempts at Ref-bombing but once it is torn apart, I don't locate anything worthwhile.

Yeah, he has written for reliable publication-houses but that does not count towards notability and he fails WP:NAUTHOR by a mile. Neither does he pass WP:NACADEMIC nor does he pass WP:NFILMMAKER. In totality, the subject fails the general notability guidelines as well as the subject notability guidelines comprehensively.

And, after a due search; I failed to progress any toward his' meeting our guidelines. ∯WBG^converse 12:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranca Research which they founded. That company probably fails WP:NCORP, but that's a different article. Nothing in this article is enough to meet notability for Wikipedia standards. Ravensfire (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravensfire: the link target has subsequently been deleted under G11 so you should probably update your opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thank you - I hadn't notice that happened but not surprised. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's just not enough here to meet notability requirements and with their company article being deleted under G11, my view is just reinforced. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Times of India source appears to cover him in-depth, from a reliable source. Everything else is quotes not coverage and spam and churnalism and unreliability and promotionalism. Even if more than one good source were to surface, WP:TNT would apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soujan Joseph[edit]

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

Near-certain product of undisclosed paid editing.

A host of trivial refs in unreliable references and I don't locate anything worthwhile; after a due search. Sole credible claim to significance is directing a single film; which hardly made any ripples.

Fails the general notability guidelines as well as the subject notability guidelines by a few miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator - existing sources don't show enough notability and some searching didn't show up anything useful. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet the GNG and doesn't appear to meet any other notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 15:51, 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 keep. This's not going to be deleted. Look at RM et al. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartphone zombie[edit]

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

Trying to fix a malformed AfD nomination by E.3 (I oppose deletion myself). Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical article. Have brought useable points to digital media use and mental health. I have concerns about the POV and linguistic misunderstandings of the title. E.3 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. The proposed target, digital media use and mental health, is itself at AfD and so the fate of that page should be settled first. This merger is perhaps an attempt to save that other article but this seems inappropriate. This page is about a specific pedestrian phenomenon and it's more about traffic management than medicine. The other concerns are not stated. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-established social phenomenon extensively covered by scholarly literature as well as the plethora of reliable sources already referenced in the article. The nominator's "concerns" are not reasons for deletion and they do not address the claimed lack of topic notability. Suggest withdrawal, and a reading ofWP:BEFORE. ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator has in one day proposed 7 mergers into an article he recently created (and which has now just survived an AfD itself, but only on 'no consensus') and in which he has a stated COI. The nominator is new to Wikipedia and has been (naively) forum shopping on multiple issues. This is more of the same. I also suggest withdrawal and time allowed for the merger discussions to be concluded. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for everyone's help. all of the above is true. I am just yet to see a rational reason for an article with such a title included on English Wikipedia when for so long social media addiction has gone neglected. It makes no sense to me. 11:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment If we must keep the article as traffic phenomena, all pro. Just change the title. The title is completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. E.3 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.3, an AfD is for discussion of whether an article should or should not be deleted. Discussion about other aspects of the article, e.g. changing its title or merging it with another article, would be better placed on its Talk page. If you are withdrawing your proposed deletion, please make that clear and this AfD can be shut down. If you are not, it would help if you could explain why you feel the article should be deleted more clearly, drawing on policy if possible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be deleted because it is medical in scope, its title makes it stigmatising to sufferers of real medical conditions, and it appears to be a gallery of people who were using their smartphones as its primary intention. A new article if it is required about traffic and pedestrians should be written from the ground up. This article is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. E.3 (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reason 1 for deletion:

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

Reason 2:

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Reason 3: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
E.3 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. E.3 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar shows there is NO reputable source discussing this in this terminology. These people are not zombies. It is very clearly WP:NPOV incompatible, It is one of the most stigmatising articles I have ever seen. These people may or may not have real medical conditions. We have good articles on them all. E.3 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing in the current article that implies that this article is referring to a medical condition. I see nothing to suggest it is stigmatising a real medical condition. The article contains text and is not just a gallery of pictures. The article has multiple reliable source citations and appears to meet WP:GNG. There is no requirement for an article like this to have sources in Google Scholar. The article could do with improving, but AfD is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for there being nothing in the current article referring to it as a medical condition is because you deleted the 2018 Korean citation stating that the media are referring to the medical conditions. This appears to be a little tricksy. E.3 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the 2015 book that uses this terminology that in psychological opinion led to moral panic around these theories and cited him saying that. It is my contention that this article is one of the other factors that led to this moral panic. E.3 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have put the citations back in. This is in the scope of Wikiproject Medicine. It does not comply with MEDRS and quite likely never will. so it must be deleted. E.3 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics means a lot whist the term is common in Germany and other places where English is not the primary language, I note what the BBC stated on it. I couldn't have said it better myself. This pejorative label has no place in an encyclopaedia. E.3 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bias 4/4 subjects in the gallery of "smartphone zombies" were female. What on earth guys? E.3 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLICKBAIT- this page is one of the only talk pages I've seen with daily page counters. It seems to me some contributors may have had subconscious inclinations to use wikipedia as a soapbox, and clickbait this issue. I may have done the same at the time if I was paying attention, but I understand the policies a little better now. E.3 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

consideration of withdrawal If my contributions to the article are allowed to stand I will withdraw the deletion nomination, and respectfully involved editors to help me with future extremely difficult consensus around the title to avoid stimatisation (which not just I note as we see from the BBC). Also the gallery needs to only show traffic signs and the like rather than people, to avoid stigmatising the subjects who may have mental health conditions or may be perfectly fine. Who ever took them does not know that. I will also try to find actors ONLY for the articles I wrote, I have no idea what was happening with the Romanian teenagers I have at digital media use and mental health, that was a mistake. IMHO article should focus on pedestrians and traffic and government responses, thats notable on its own. E.3 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONS I hope will align with this discussion. This is not the zombie apocalypse, simply a controversial topic with a lot of linguistic misunderstandings, genuine care and concern from most if not all contributors. E.3 (talk) 05:36, 22 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 Human Animal. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human animal[edit]

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

Needs AfD attention. A dab-page that was put up by Daiyusha as WP:A11 but LynxTufts boldly redirected to the WP album article Human Animal. There is also another valid dab-page called The Human Animal, which this article seems to also incorporate. Suspect that this needs a consensus on whether this term should be used on WP. I suspect that this is not the first time this term has been discussed at AfD.Britishfinance (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful disambiguation page. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to The Human Animal. There's no need for two dab pages, and only one entry doesn't include "The".~~ per PamD. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this again to Human Animal; there is now a hatnote there (I added it just now) to point to the dab page at The Human Animal. I think that covers all angles tidily. PamD 14:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think dab pages are actually supposed to go to MfD not AfD? Doesn't bother me, might bother some. PamD 14:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab pages are a type of article (of sorts), so this is the correct place for nominating them (see the first paragraph of WP:AFD). MfD doesn't concernt itself with stuff in the article namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:PamD. Wasn't aware that there was a separate dab page at the time (or that the page creator had reverted my edit a few days later). LynxTufts (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful disambiguation page, around widely used concepts often in conjunction human animal and nonhuman animal; also in human versus nonhuman species analysis; In biology and personhood category.. redirects that have been undone; The Human Animal with capital letters, refers to books films with this specific title; "the" is not recommended as beginning of pages.(talk) Yves.bertin (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is the issue. There is no scientific-term "Human animal". Your Talk Page entry for this article, and the links that you sought to create in the article to other WP biology articles (which have since deleted by another editor, Pontificalibus), indicate that you are looking to establish such a term. I don't think that is a proper use of a Human animal article as a dab-page. It probably means that this page always be subject to such incorrect use. Britishfinance (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When whole books in different languages have been written on this specific subject, it would be incorrect to deny that this terms exists, is used, has specific fields of meanings, which may be listed in such a dab page. Yves.bertin (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human Animal as R from other capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human Animal; hatnote linking to The Human Animal is sufficient disambiguation. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:59, 28 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) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael[edit]

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

Article seems to be based on self-promotion by think-tank. Shtove (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much significant coverage information about the organization from independent sources. There's [8], and it is probably independent, but it still feels promotional. It also seems routine; the source describes itself as a portal to find content on organizations based in the Hague that promote international peace and justice. That doesn't seem like a very selective list. And even that source says Clingendael has only about 60 employees. Everything else online has similar issues. It's all either routine or affiliated, sometimes both. The organization seems competent and is probably a reliable source on international justice issues, but as for itself being notable, it seems WP:TOOSOON. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not this WP:TOOSOON really applies here. The Institute was created in 1982. 05:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Lean Keep I'll admit my bias upfront, I studied at Clingendael with an outside organization in 2013. That being said, this article needs work (especially reliable sources). I would argue that as a IR think-tank with (if I remember correctly) arms-length government connection, it is notable. I'll see what I can do to bolster the current article. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bkissin has greatly improved the article, but I'm not convinced the references establish notability or that they aren't the fruit of self-promotion (no criticism of Bkissin). If not to be deleted, it is a candidate for inclusion on a long list of think-tanks that enjoy the benefit of state-funding. Why don't governments just directly publish their own propaganda? shtove

Comment I think you might have meant this to be a comment rather than a second vote to delete. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage such as this and this leads me to believe the organization easily meets WP:N. Other governments have touted visits indicating its international importance (WP:NGO).[9][10] Perhaps people would have more luck finding substantial coverage by searching for Instituut Clingendael in Dutch. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 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 Barış Manço. In the unlikely event that anything here is worth merging to Barış Manço, content is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trip Fairground[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N criteria; could not find any coverage on the song specifically with the exception of one blog post in Turkish. Furthermore, lacks indication of any broader importance or significance. Noahhoward (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is a very brief one, and could be merged with the article on Baris Manco without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barış Manço --Lockley (talk) 02:54, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brearey[edit]

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

Despite the article existing since 2005, it is unsourced and fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not find any reliable coverage for WP:GNG so that's why I have nominated the page. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time that Wikipedia was rid of unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some. But other old, unsourced articles simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this can be improved with sources. Dannyno (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dannyno: Thank you for going through the effort to find citations, but both of which you added to the article seem to be obituarys or opinion pieces plus are both offline, so they are not the best for WP:RS. If in-depth, third-party, online citations can be found I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that offline sources are not in fact considered problematic by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources Dannyno (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dannyno: That is not the main issue, although the fact that the majority of references are offline is a bit difficult to cross-check. The bigger problem is where the sources are coming from. At the time of this edit, the last 4 sources all seem to be obituarys based on their title and publication dates. Sources 1 and 3 appear to be dictionaries, which per WP:DICTIONARIES should be cited with care. More so 3 of the sources come from newspapers that the subject worked for. All of these sources can be classified as WP:PRIMARY, which aren't bad as a whole and are actually good for backing up uncontroversial and basic facts, but are bad on their own at establishing notability. This leaves the Guardian article as the only second-party reference, in which only an opinion piece of Brearey is mentioned. Once again thank you for putting in the effort in gathering these references, but I am still not seeing enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree,can improve with a few sources Alex-h (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at any rate let's see what we end up with some sources. If still not judged "notable", then merge content into the article on The Freethinker. Dannyno (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This now has sources, and enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would not consider sources 1 and 3 to be dictionaries, despite the name of source 3 - dictionaries do not generally include biographical information about people, which this does (its description on Google Books includes "The names of many people whose lives or work reflect freethought principles form a major portion of the entries.). Both are more like encyclopaedias, which are allowed as sources, per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." So there are 3 main WP:RS. Apart from that, he was the editor for 5 years of a magazine which had existed for 112 years by the time he took over the editorship. For an academic journal, that would be a pass of WP:NACADEMIC #8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guardian obit and other sources recently added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 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. Despite the long discussion, there's only 1 "keep" !vote here (plus one "merge"). I find the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. If somebody wishes to merge this to the industrial park article, drop me a note and I will userfy this list. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of industrial parks by size[edit]

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

This compiled list is original research. There are references for the size of individual parks but nothing to denote their global ranking, so this could just be a list of random parks in size order. I can find no single source specifying the top industrial parks in the world by size, not to mention there is no accepted definition of what constitutes an industrial park compared to say, certain types of special economic zone. If such a source exists this would likely need to be WP:TNTed in any case, and WP:CLEANUP now would see this reduced to an empty list for lack of sourcing. Best to delete it with no prejudice to recreation if proper sourcing for rank can be found. Pontificalibus 08:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Not all industrial parks are notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although perhaps should be moved/renamed to simply List of industrial parks, and edited in table form so can be sorted alphabetically or by size. We have Category:Industrial parks with about 20 members, i.e. industrial parks having Wikipedia articles. See wp:CLNT for the general reasoning why list-articles, categories, and navigation templates are complementary. A list-article can have pics and sources and comparative descriptive info, while categories cannot, is one advantage. --Doncram (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination calls for use of essay wp:TNT to justify deletion then recreation of the list-article, which IMO is fundamentally against Wikipedia basic principles. Please see counter-essay wp:TNTTNT. Note that arguing TNT is admitting that the topic is notable, and IMO means this AFD should perhaps be closed SPEEDY KEEP. --Doncram (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Industrial park. Per Doncram having a list of such parks may be a valid topic, but it's OR to have rankings here. I don't see a need for a separate article when the main is so short, it could certainly have a section "The following industrial parks are larger than 1,000 acres" or something. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per the OR concerns. The suggestion to move to List of industrial parks is an interesting one, but difficult because of inclusion criteria. As stated above, there's not a clear distinction between industrial parks and special economic zones. Perhaps the category should also be deleted for that reason. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 04:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just moved it to List of industrial parks. It is fine there. I find this AFD discussion silly, do let's just accept it was/is reasonable to move it, and it has been moved, and please go on with your lives. If you want to complain about the current state of the list-article please do so by commenting at its Talk page. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify the move or "Keep" to say yes the content has been kept. Enough already. This is ready to be closed. --Doncram (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to rename articles mid discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of title. This 35-entry list has the potential scope for thousands if not tens of thousands of industrial parks across the world that are as large or greater than current entry #35's 180 acres. Until there are reliable sources that inventories industrial parks around the world or at least by country to inform this list, it is going to remain a list that horn toots the largest industrial parks near a select few interested editors that they know about. Hwy43 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia does allow and welcome lots of lists like this, such as List of covered bridges and List of fire stations and so on, where the world has lots of whatever type of thing. And these lists work fine. We are just going to list the notable ones, i.e. all the ones that are "Wikipedia-notable" and have a separate article, or just the ones that are "list-item notable", i.e. meeting some standard which can be defined by the editors of the article, to be determined by discussion at its Talk page, most likely including requirement for reliable sourcing on each one. Refining that is a matter for Talk page discussion. By wp:CLNT we certainly allow a list-article to complement the category of these things. --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 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. czar 03:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Out (Dirtyphonics and Bassnectar song)[edit]

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

Not enough reliable coverage for a song that did not chart nor received any sales certification. Fails WP:NSONG. 99.203.31.213 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request by IP completed by me. Iffy★Chat -- 15:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sales chart records and no top chart positions. I am the creator of this article, but G7 does not apply as I am not the only major contributor. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only has 5 references, one of which is about a drum cover. Minimum should be around 7 to 10 for a non-charted song by a notable musician. Micro (Talk) 21:48, 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jones[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guideline for biographies, and claim to fame is being on Survivor, which does not indicate a need for a separate article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Adding the following article for the same reasons.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it does seem like she has done other things, and was the founder of a charity and had other TV appearances. However there is too much on her presence on Survivor suggesting that that is the key to her notability. Playlet (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage from regional sources. That Lakers thing is a non-story since no one was disciplined or charged for it.Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"regional" or "local" coverage is not a factor in WP:BASIC. WP:AUD is for organisations (and is a garbage guideline), WP:GEOSCOPE is for events, there is no corresponding requirement for BLP. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just truly do not see notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP per Playlet FOARP (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll grant that it's too long and should be trimmed back, but the article meets notability and should, ahem, survive. XF641D9K (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are y'all just going to keep "relisting" until you get enough delete votes? That doesn't seem like an honest process. Once again, it's a too-long article that should be trimmed considerably but not deleted. XF641D9K (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: XF641D9K (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Comment. Both subjects also fail WP:GNG, as mentions of them are trivial at most. Thus both fail WP:NBIO as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 22 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India News Haryana[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all given sources are either primary sources or routine coverage of executive changes in industry magazines of dubious reliability. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The news channel is having similar notability that Zee Punjabi is having because both are regional channel and very popular amoung regional channels.--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, I don't really think Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal passes WP:GNG either, at least in its current state. One source of dubious reliability is not generally considered enough to prove notability. It does look like there may be a few more possible sources due to some ongoing legal battles their parent company is under (see [11] and [12]) but I don't really know if that's enough to show notability in general. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Till date Wikipedia does not have fixed criteria for media because even Wikipedia rely on these media houses and their news for any kind of references. These news channels because of such credibility passes notability test. Also these media houses are not promoting themselves on Wikipedia. Even Google and Facebook like platforms uses these news channels for promotion. They don't require Wikipedia for promotion. Also these news channels are registered and accredited media houses and contributing alot in Press.And I dont think legal battles prove notability? See you also relying on Hindustan Times for proving notability. Hope you are understanding what I mean?--Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a WP:GNG and WP:NCORP failure, with must more emphasis being on the former. The issue is there is a lack of in-depth, significant (WP:SIGCOV) coverage that actually puts forward India News Haryana as having a claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @SamHolt6 I have added more references and Add to that let me inform you that India News Haryana can be viewed in all DTH operators and cable TV operators. It has high reach. Through DTH it can be viewed in Himachal, Haryana, J&K, Punjab, Chandigarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - Notability is minimal and article is non-neutral. Allow a neutral editor to write a neutral article. The current editor has acknowledged being an employee of a PR firm that has represented other clients, so that a disclaimer of conflict of interest in this article is implausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Itv Network (India), lacking significant sources required for a standalone article, issue of apparent WP:COI creation of article is also a concern, suggest that parent article can be further developed before any more of its channels are broken out. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 28 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reductive-Investment Analysis[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article even contains a section promoting the "author" who is presumably the editor who created the article. A google search yields no significant coverage beyond his own publications. Pontificalibus 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This content was previously deleted on 15 January 2019 under CSD as the article Fuad Akhundov/Reductive İnvestment Analysis. This is promotional and the history means that a degree of salting will be required.Britishfinance (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This information will be useful. This article talks about scientific discovery.Svetagloriya (talk), 21 January 2019

information Reductive-Investment Analysis has a right to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetagloriya (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Svetagloriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reductive-Investment Analysis is a Encyclopedic article about novelty. The article corresponds to the Wikipedia. Mcdonovan1 —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC) — Mcdonovan1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article text has been copied from the Introduction and Section 1 of Fuad Akhundov's self-published book, so is a WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*This article Reductive-Investment Analysis is not advertising goods. This is an article about a new scientific method. Any scientific novelty is encyclopedic material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonovan1 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

No, Wikipedia has notability guidelines as to what is appropriate for inclusion. AllyD (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if the WP:COPYVIO text pasted from Mr Akhundov's ebook was to be entirely rewritted, the problem of notability would remain. Searches are not finding evidence that Reductive-Investment Analysis has attained notability. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG best I can tell, Has anyone filed a SPI on these SPAs?^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Investreport. Sock votes struck out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After removal of the copyright violations, the author decided to convert the remaining part of the article to a biography. We should consider if the biography can be deleted for lack of notability, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as WP:NOTADVERTISING and not WP:SELFPROMOTE. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that the various socks have been blocked and the biographical Fuad M. Akhundov has been deleted, all that is left is for an uninvolved admin to clear away the redlink redirect and close this AfD? AllyD (talk) 13:39, 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 redirect to Dan Swanö. Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unisound Studios[edit]

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

WP:N. The article has few references, none of which are sufficient, and a search online for more fails to produce more. It's possible that a product released by them is sufficiently notable for its own page, and this is reinforced by the existence of a number of blue links in the article, but per WP:NORG, this does not confer notability on the Studio itself. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has about 60 incoming links, most of which lead to its former title Unisound which was recently usurped by a different subject. (I understand that link count is not an argument against deletion.) Certes (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have just removed that article that was at Unisound and put it in draft - there's a probable COI there. But I don't think this article should be moved back until this deletion discussion reaches a conclusion. Deb (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Unisound to Dan Swanö – The current title was created as an attempt at disambiguation, but there's no indication the studio was ever known by this name. While discussing this title with the (non-COI, in my opinion) editor Redwards21, I noticed that this displaced article would not meet current AfC standards for establishing notability. Redirecting to the notable person who is the producer behind Unisound makes the most sense to me. Whether the list of productions needs to be carried over depends on how much you like lists. I don't think it's strictly necessary. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Swanö, as although notable albums may have been produced there WP:NOTINHERITED, it may be appropriate to include some words about this aspect of Swanö's contribution to the music scene. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the talk page Draft talk:Unisound contains an incorrect history note about a non-existent cut-paste from Unisound Studios. It seems the author of the Beijing Unisound article thinks the incorrect history note should be kept around for some reason. If this page is deleted, something need to be done to fix the history attribution, since it implies that the Unisound Studios article contains edit history for the Beijing Unisound article. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan Swanö. On its own, this topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:48, 24 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 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Memory of Our People[edit]

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

Hard pressed to find anything whatsoever about this magazine in both English and Spanish. Also, the fact the official site is hosted through blogspot doesn't instill me with hope. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:NMAG--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: NMAG is an essay, and either way, which aspect does it satisfy? Publishing articles doens't prove it's made a significant impact unless there are the sources to prove it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The mere act of publishing doesn't guarantee notability and no real notability is even claimed here and certainly not substantiated. The article seems more of a hanger to create a list of no less than 114 non-notable people in a list (which should be deleted by itself), including a single blue link that is to the wrong person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, including Spanish where it's either brief mentions or blog articles.--Pontificalibus 09:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PSAV (Methodology)[edit]

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

Brand new methodology (made up in the last 6 months). No evidence it is in wide use. Fails the notability standards. Author of article appears to be "inventor" of method, so rather spam-like. Declined prod by original author. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor who placed the PROD for the reasons mentioned by QuiteUnusual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather self-promotional and needs at least one secondary source to establish some notability, otherwise it is just the subject of a recent research paper.Poltair (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article creator appears to be the "inventor" of this research concept, whose only contributions relates to this article, WP:NOTPROMOTION, at the very least this is WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 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. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. The best sources from the past AfDs are IB Times and BBC News. Though BBC just has it in the side bar section called "Alt coin mining". It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin. A Daily Dot article was cited by some keeps but it was pointed out that it's an opinion piece republished from someone's blog. End of the 2nd AfD an article from JOSIC is cited but the site doesn't load for me and it probably wasn't a reliable source per the objector's comments. In my opinion IB Times was the only source that can be used to establish notability. Is there anything better? Џ 01:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - negligible mainstream coverage, and the crypto blog coverage is not up to sourcing standards - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a reference check. This has literally zero RSes - mostly primary, one unreliable, two that don't mention Vertcoin at all - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what is this? Why do you want to delete the item due to these citations? Indeed. They are not literary sources, but i think you can hardly expect that for anyrything in the crypto environment currently. High quality primary sources with publically reviewable code is cited. That seems more than enough sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.48.205 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — 62.163.48.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep:
- Vertcoin was mentioned in NBC News , and Investopedia, and is pioneer in decentralized mining since 2014, the first altcoin that forked to remove ASIC, and the coin still keep its vision until now.
- Also, it's much easier for other coins with ICO or premined afford to pay editor to post on mainstream news, while Vertcoin had a fair launch and 0 premined. There's no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainam9 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Tainam9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Investopedia article "3 Obscure Cryptocurrencies to Watch" wasn't written by a staff writer. There are hundreds of "contributors" to the site. NBC article "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" was published at a time when most altcoins were rising. Џ 04:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

Sources with quotes

Charlton, Alistair (2014-02-05). "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. By taking the foundations of bitcoin and making some adjustments, vertcoin punishes miners who use powerful machines and work together in 'pools' to monopolise the mining market.
...
As with most cryptocurrencies, vertcoin had an almost worthless valuation when it was created at the start of 2014, but while others have seen small peaks and troughs since then, vertcoin has soared from mere cents to more than $9 per coin, increasing by several hundred percent every day.
...
Because it was only launched earlier this year - and is resistant to industrial-scale mining from powerful computers - vertcoins are somewhat scarce. Due to a lack of bitcoin-style ecosystem of exchanges where coins are traded for real-world currencies like dollars, sterling and the euro, vertcoins are bought in exchange for bitcoins on sites like CoinedUp.com.
DeMuro, Jonas (2018-02-03). "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
6. Vertcoin (VTC)

Vertcoin was launched in 2014, and is similar to Bitcoin and Litecoin, although it’s certainly not as well-known. Vertcoin is open source, decentralized, and has a block time of 2.5 minutes. It also endeavors to be ‘the peoples’ coin’.
In other words, Vertcoin wants to avoid control by banks or other centralized mining powers. It incorporates ASIC resistance, meaning it’s designed to avoid being dominated by mining farms, allowing everyone the opportunity to mine using simple consumer graphics cards.
Vertcoin also utilizes the Lightning Network for instant blockchain transactions. Additionally, the Lightning Network has the ‘Atomic Cross-Chain’ which allows Vertcoin to be exchanged directly into either Litecoin or Bitcoin, decentralizing the exchanges. The creators are also working on ‘Stealth Addresses’ which allows them to provide privacy within the public ledger of the blockchain.
Two other factors contribute to the popularity of Vertcoin. The first is that it has an active community on social media sites, and the other big plus is that it’s easily mined by novices using one-click software, making it highly accessible.
Popken, Ben (2018-01-03). "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
Vertcoin (coin)

Jan. 1, 2017 price: $0.03
Jan. 1, 2018 price: $6.80
Rise: 22,500 percent
One of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it's supposed to be deregulated and decentralized. But "minting" or "mining" more bitcoins requires using increasingly faster and more expensive computers to solve more complex math problems. That puts more power in the hands of those who have the time and money to run the mining systems, especially specialized machines whose sole purpose is mining. Vertcoin is a tweaked version of bitcoin that its developers say is "resistant" to being exploited by some of these systems. That's drawn fans on the social link sharing site Reddit, and soaring popularity over the last year.
Ryan, Thomas (2014-04-29). "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". SemiAccurate. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
As a viable crypto currency with a network hashrate of about five Gigahashes per second it clear that mining Vertcoin is a meaningful real-world workload. Consistency and reproducibility are concepts that go hand in hand when it comes to crypto currency. Vertcoin is a Scrypt-N coin; unlike SHA-256 coins or other Scrypt-based coins, Vertcoin offers comparatively low hashrates. Using one of AMD’s HD 7970’s will net you about 650 Megahashs per second mining a SHA-256 coin. That same GPU will mine a Scrypt-based coin at about 700 Kilohashes per second and it will mine Vertcoin at about 350 kilohashes per second. We believe that extreme difficulty of the algorithm behind Vertcoin will allow it remain relevant through successive generations of new GPUs.
Vertcoin is unlike a lot of other coins in that the user’s options for tuning their miners are far more limited than with other coins. There are really only two relevant settings when it comes to tuning a Vertcoin miner: intensity and thread concurrency. As a good starting point to find the right thread concurrency number for your GPU you should take the number of cores and then multiply that number by four. Because Vertcoin’s algorithm requires double the amount of memory as other Scrypt coins we then are going to double that thread concurrency number. In the case of your HD 7970 that means we’re using a thread concurrency of 16384.
The author of this SemiAccurate article, Ryan Thomas, is also a writer for PC World.
Ward, Mark (2014-04-25). "How to mint your own virtual money". BBC. Archived from the original on 2019-01-01. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
Vertcoin's developers have modified its mining algorithm which generates the coins. Despite its name, mining actually involves getting a computer to search for the answer to a hard mathematical problem. The miner who finds the answer typically gets rewarded with newly minted coins.
Mr Houlihane liked Vertcoin because, he said, it is designed to be hard to mine with dedicated processors. The rise of these purpose-made processors have made it all but impossible for the vast majority of people to mine Bitcoins. The mining is dominated by groups that have tied together hundreds of dedicated processors with which the average home miner cannot hope to compete.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are generic me-too coverage on a list. None of these stand out as evidence of NCORP, they're all "uh also these guys" - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit, you falsely marked Џ (talk · contribs) as an SPA. Can you explain your rationale for this action, based on Џ's contributions? - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Џ account was created 22 December 2018, four days before the start of this AfD. I agree that this is not a single-purpose account since this is a returning editor. Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources 1) IB Times article by a staff writer that I said was okay in the nomination. 2) Article titled "6 cryptocurrencies that could become the next Bitcoin" written by Jonas DeMuro. His most recent articles are "Best payment gateways of 2019", "Best mobile card payment reader of 2018", and "Best merchant services of 2018" and he has many more like that. I don't think any of these low effort list articles establish notability. 3) Article titled "Missed the bitcoin boom? Check out these five rising cryptocurrencies" published when most altcoins were rising in early 2018. How did the writer decide what to include or is it another low effort list article with no new information? 4) Article titled "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin". Is this not a primary source? They link this article which is a review that used vertcoin to test mining performance and I guess some asked why they used vertcoin so they publish an article on why they like vertcoin. 5) I went over this in the nomination: "BBC just has it in the side bar section called 'Alt coin mining'. It was only because the miner they interviewed happened to like vertcoin a lot. If they interviewed someone else it could have been a different coin." Still so far, it's only the IB Times article that I think helps establish notability. Џ 05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the articles in TechRadar and NBC News to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" that provide detailed analysis about Vertcoin, not "low effort list articles". I do not consider the article in SemiAccurate to be a primary source just because SemiAccurate "used vertcoin to test mining performance". They did not create or develop Vertcoin. That they "publish[ed] an article on why they like vertcoin" and why they are using it as a benchmark is significant coverage in a reliable source independent of Vertcoin.
Cunard (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be part of the vertcoin team for the source not to be independent. WP:Identifying and using independent sources says "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." They were mining vertcoin at the time and could have profited if it went up in value. Џ 07:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SemiAccurate's mining of Vertcoin was to "quantify the relative performance of GPUs". This is standard journalistic research. Vertcoin might go up in value and make the Vertcoin they mined in their research more valuable. I do not think standard journalistic research should render SemiAccurate an unusable source for notability. But even if SemiAccurate is disregarded, there is still sufficient coverage to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin participants who have been active in the last year: Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), Dialectric (talk · contribs), Valoem (talk · contribs), Lewis Hulbert (talk · contribs), Ariel. (talk · contribs), Kb3edk (talk · contribs), Cryptic Canadian (talk · contribs), Pburka (talk · contribs), King of Hearts (talk · contribs), Agyle (talk · contribs), and ONaNcle (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (2nd nomination) participants who have been active in the last year: Jonpatterns (talk · contribs), Mark viking (talk · contribs), and Spirit of Eagle (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the work above describes exactly in terms that are entirely generic to other 100's of cryptocurrencies that exist, and have no special meaning outside those cryptocurrency companies. The premise seems to be based on the tweak to their algo to favour GPU's, isn't enough for standalone notability, as the reason for the high cost of NVidia cards is due to the miners emptying the shelves, and Vertcoin arent the only cryptocoin company that favours GPU's, against FPGA or ASIC's. So a solid Delete by WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak arguments, please be more specific about the algorithm tweak, Vertcoin invented Lyra2REv2 and how many coins copy that algorithm? High cost of NVIDIA card is irrelevant here. Also, if you think Vertcoin is a company, your don't understand crypto-currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainam9 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) — Tainam9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep because it seems to be little more then advertising platform. I fully realize and agree with User:Cunard that there does exist enough sources to make an article. Deletion is not the path for clean up but hopefully one of the Bit Coin experienced editors take notes and helps maintain it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I read your response did you mean keep here? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem I meant to strike my deletion rationale in favor of a keep. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I corrected it for you. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin was the subject of articles in International Business Times and SemiAccurate. It received significant coverage in TechRadar, NBC News, and BBC. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The articles contain detailed analysis of Vertcoin. For example, TechRadar says:
Two other factors contribute to the popularity of Vertcoin. The first is that it has an active community on social media sites, and the other big plus is that it’s easily mined by novices using one-click software, making it highly accessible.
Hell in a Bucket notes that the topic has sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article and that deletion is not cleanup. I agree per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this refactoring, which I am reverting, this is not a "long comment" and this does not say the same thing. This is my response to editors' comments and further elaborates on my "keep" comment.
Cunard (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the response. I want to make sure that my rationale is clear. Subject is notable, I think it has largely been advertisement (my deletion reason) but I do note that with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion (not my rationale because it is established policy deletion is not for cleanup). I am on the side that they are not all bit coins are inherently notable but consensus has seemed to be that they are in the previous discussions so here we are :). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you did not see this response, which earlier had been moved up the page.

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), I agree that "with the proper attention the article can be sourced and written in a formal and encyclopedic fashion". I rewrote the article with the sources I presented here. Would you reconsider your "delete" position? Thank you,

Cunard (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard, I can support the changes you made to the article, it looks much improved and while I still have reservations it won't be turned back to an ad platform over time by others, I'm comfortable enough with it as is to change to Keep noting that any article could have the same issue and shouldn't be the final determiner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), for reviewing the article and reconsidering your position. I agree that the article might be "turned back to an ad platform over time by others", so I've put it on my watchlist. I have many articles on my watchlist so may overlook promotional edits that get through. I encourage more editors and admins to watchlist the page so that promotional edits can be reverted and the page protected if necessary.

Cunard (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source provided prove that this cryptocurrency pass Wikipedia's GNG. From what I understand have articles regarding specific coin may influence their trading behavior. I cannot help but notice that there maybe a financial motive for the removal of articles involving this subject. Here are some additional sources:

Brewster, Thomas (2017-11-08). "This Russian Has The Power To Turn 100,000 Android Phones Into Cryptocurrency Miners". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
to make much money from his miners so far. Indeed, he said that despite having as many as 103,000 live installs across his applications, and tens of millions of historical downloads, only 5,000 had enabled the feature. A cryptocurrency account found by Tanase showed Khripov earned the equivalent of $1,150 in Magicoin as of Tuesday. The developer was mainly focused on Magicoin, as well as Feathercoin and Vertcoin, amongst other lesser-known, alternative currencies (better known as altcoins).
Georgiev, Georgi (2018-02-03). "VERTCOIN 51% ATTACK COULD HAVE CAUSED $100K IN DOUBLE SPENDING". bitcoinist. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
6. Vertcoin

It’s worth noting that Vertcoin’s mining algorithm is deliberately geared against ASIC and ASIC-like devices by making them particularly inefficient. Instead, mining on the network is designed to be achieved solely through commonly available graphics cards. This is supposedly an attempt to hedge against mining centralization.
Drake, Ed (2018-12-01). "Vertcoin loses over $100,000 in 51% attack: report". CoinGeek. Retrieved 2019-01-01.
The article notes:
Vertcoin

Vertcoin (VTC) has fallen prey to a 51% attack, with some estimates suggesting losses have already surpassed $100,000 as a result of double spend transactions on the chain. It is the latest example of a 51% attack, where attackers take control of a majority share of a network, reflecting the inherent weaknesses in the proof of work model.

As per Cunard there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vertcoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article just mentions it once as one of the coins mined so it isn't significant coverage. The other two are cryptocurrency news sites and one of the outcomes of WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk was that it shouldn't be used for notability. Though technically the RfC was just for CoinDesk I doubt other cryptocurrency news sites would get a better outcome. Џ 08:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is another source about the subject:
1. Kim, Il-Hwan (December 2018). "Feasibility Analysis of Majority Attacks on Blockchains". The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers. 67 (12). Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers: 1685–1689. doi:10.5370/KIEE.2018.67.12.1685. ISSN 1975-8359. Retrieved 2019-01-03 – via Nurimedia.
  From the abstract:
  In this research, 51% attack or majority attack is becoming an important security issue for proof of work based blockchains. Due to decentralized nature of blockchains, any attacks that shutdowns the network or which take control over the network is hard to prevent and assess. In this paper, different types of majority attack are summarized and the motivations behind the attacks are explained. To show the feasibility of the majority attack, we build an example mining machines that can take control over two of the public blockchains, Vertcoin and Monero.
  From the article:
  5.2.1 Vertcoin (VTC)
  
  Vertcoin is a PoW blockchain based on Lyra2rev2 algorithm [11]. It is known to support atomic swap, which is a way to exchange Vertcoin with different PoW based coins. MAs that delays transactions are dangerous for atomic swap, as it uses hash time locked transaction. Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack.
  From the "Conclusion" section:
  ... Finally, feasibility analysis also show that our machine could have launched majority attacks for Vertcoin and Monero using the hashrate of 1.92 and 2.4 Ghash respectively. ...
  Here is the journal article's author's biography:
  Il-Hwan Kim
  
  He received B.S. and M.S. degree in the dept. of control and instrumentation engineering from Seoul National University in 1982 and 1985 respectively and Ph.D. at the Tohoku University in 1993. In 1995, he joined the dept. of electrical and electronic engineering at the Kangwon National University and is currently a professor
That Vertcoin has been the subject of academic research strongly support its notability.
The full-length article in International Business Times and the significant coverage in the journal The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers, TechRadar, and NBC News is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 5 reliable sources, one even from BBC. Quick search turned up plenty more results. Passes WP:GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More cryptospam in violation of G11 and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies Bkissin (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an established editor who has no conflict of interest with Vertcoin. I rewrote the article. Please explain how this article is "cryptospam in violation of G11 and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Valoem and Redditaddict69. However, I see what looks like many new users popping up here just for this !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cunard: Do you have free access to the Korean engineer article? It wants me to pay to see the blurred pages. Also do you know the exact date it was published? Џ 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the article. It was published in December 2018. There is no exact date provided for when it was published. Here is what the source says:
출처: 전기학회논문지 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)

(Source): The transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 67(12), 2018.12, 1685-1689 (5 pages)
The article also notes:
Corresponding Author: Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kangwon National University, Korea.

E-mail: [email protected]

Received: October 22, 2018; Accepted: November 3, 2018
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found a free access version. Their "feasibility analysis" is based on hashrates from 2014. Any coin could have been easily 51% with present day machines if you go back far enough. It may have been worth mentioning if it was based on the current hashrate, especially since Vertcoin did get 51% attacked by the time the paper was published. The best use I see is adding the quote "Because it is not a very popular blockchain, the difficulty adjustment algorithm is very sensitive to hashrate change, making it an easy target to timestamp spoofing and cherry picking attack" to contrast with all the positive things those list articles said. Џ 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a good addition to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources identified provide substantial coverage. A few mentions does not meet the WP:NCORP requirements. R2d232h2 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user.
Cunard (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Sample: "Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin": David Muller's Vertcoin hopes to offer an alternative. Etc. Etc. This is all about company's hopes and aspirations & does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism masquerading as an encyclopedia article based on equally promotionalist sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated: the review of sources provided above confirms that this page is cryptocurrency 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting that this stay open for a little longer to wait for responses. @Redditaddict69: What are those search results then? @Rsrikanth05: You said "Keep per Valoem and Redditaddict69." Did you see my response to @Valoem:'s comment? Do either of you have anything it say about it? Because it essentially invalidates those three extra sources. Џ 05:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps someone can reduce the walls of horribly formatted text. Please have pity with the closing admin...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too find Cunard's wall-of-sources unconvincing on close examination - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All source provided clearly pass our GN guidelines. I understand that cryptotraders want to limit the control of specific currencies due to financial reasons, unfortunately we cannot remove notable articles simply to curb the influence on trading. The coin passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's sources show that the topic passes WP:GNG. Balkywrest (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request : The practice of quoting extensively from sources makes the already strenuous project of AfD even more so. As I recall, practitioners of extensive quotation have been asked to refrain from it or, at least, use it sparingly. Let me applaud your efforts, fellow editors, since they clearly go above and beyond the call of duty, as they say, but please, pretty please, with sugar on top , help! There are hundreds of AfDs always going on and the wide adoption of such a practice would seriously impede their progress. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I absolutely appreciate the effort that goes into this sort of research, but please understand that being so verbose makes it more difficult to comprehend. The human brain is wired to understand things in chunks. If you can't see an entire comment at once, it's harder to understand it. I'm working on an absurdly large 5K monitor, and some of the comments in this AfD are still too long to get onto a single screen without scrolling. It's going to be even worse for people on smaller screens, laptops, tablets, or even phones. Let me suggest a compromise; if you're going to provide these long quotes, at least wrap them in Template:Collapse blocks. Then, anybody who wants to read the whole thing can unhide the quote, but it's not eating up gobs of screen real-estate all the time. And, before you object to the idea that anybody would want to edit on a phone, consider that for a good chunk of the world, mobile devices are the only way most people access the internet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has been asked repeatedly not to filibuster AFDs in this manner. It may be time to collect examples and seek behavioural remedies if he continues to work so badly with others - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. It has come to the point that I hesitate closing a debate if I see that Cunard is participating. It's just not worth my time to wade through all that widely-spaced text. --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "filibuster" denotes sinister intentions. Let me be quite clear about that and state that I've never detected anything beyond zeal. And that's not simply because I observe WP:AGF but because Cunard's extensive quotation is evidently meant to support their view and not to "delay or entirely prevent a decision." -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good suggestion, RoySmith (talk · contribs). I have implemented it on this AfD.

Cunard (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Cunard, that's great. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a Wired Germany article: "Vertcoin fell victim to a 51 percent attack/Vertcoin wurde Opfer einer 51-Prozent-Attacke". Before anyone else comes in to say "keep per sources", could you say which ones? To me only IB Times, Wired Germany, and the Korean article (lesser than the previous two) can help establish notability. SemiAccurate may be a reliable source but I don't think the article "Why we benchmark with Vertcoin" (Why we like mining Vertcoin) is independent. The TechRadar, NBC News, and BBC articles are closer to minor coverage. Who would still want it kept if there was only that kind of coverage? Џ 15:02, 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. czar 02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Perez (actor)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NCREATIVE. Included in the article is a routine hiring announcement, and online I was able to find a review of a one-man show by Perez, but together these don't seem to be enough to meet GNG. The article includes an Awards section, but it is uncited and I was unable to find any information about the awards in question, leading me to believe that they are insufficient for meeting WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't meet any of the creative SNG's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:55, 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. Sandstein 08:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Bridson[edit]

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

The editor of a magazine that itself probably wouldn't survive an afd. One ref in the article, before showing nothing I can see. Tagged for notability since 2012. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator did, I went seeking sources which might support WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. In honesty, and with every respect, while the subject's contributions to the relevant spheres (as editor, activist, politician, etc) may be documented in other/offline sources, I can find no evidence of that. Not to the extent that the subject is a primary topic of published (paper/offline) works at any rate. In the online sphere, the only sources I can find are this article and this one. Both of which seem to be published by the group/publication with which the subject was associated (ie. primary sources). And, while both of these support the claims in the article stub (subject was an editor and activist), they do not address the GNG/SIGCOV question. As the subject is not the primary topic in either piece of coverage. In short: delete. On GNG/SIGCOV grounds. Guliolopez (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carn magazine. The reference in this article is independent of Carn and the Celtic League, and is not yet in the Carn article. Not enough independent coverage of her for an independent article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Like the Manx language, the Celtic League, and its magazine Carn, (which should probably be a REDIRECT to Celtic League,) Bridson gets very little press attention, almost no coverage at all, really, for Bridson.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 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. Sandstein 08:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellomo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. References are unreliable sources, cannot find any reliable sources or secondary media coverage. As far as I understand it, Youtube videos are not considered reliable. Rogermx (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sources I found were either places to buy books (Amazon etc.), interviews on likely-unreliable websites (I agree with the essay Wikipedia:Interviews; they are generally primary sources and these ones are no exception) or just plain unreliable sources. He fails WP:GNG, his TV work, journalism and books do not satisfy WP:NCREATIVE, and his academic work does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. – Teratix ₵ 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for doing more research! Rogermx (talk) 13:42, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Price[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Played amateur and one year in a low-level professional league, but no achievements that would establish WP:NCOLLATH or a professional guideline. Little, if any, in-depth coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from being a four-year starter at a decently big D-1 school, I think there are enough sources [13][14][15][16][17][18]-- Yankees10 01:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sports programs receive plenty of routine coverage in the sports media, I don't see this passing the notability guidelines. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter which way people try to put it, he doesn’t meet notability for an athlete here. Trillfendi (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several of the sources provided by Yankees10 are feature articles from major news outlets, which is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Not every college football athlete attains notability, but this one does.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Yankees10 and Paul McDonald. There are stories (including those cited by Yankees10) focused on Price (i.e., "significant coverage") in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Some of those sources are national in scope, such as CBS Sports and ESPN. Accordingly, he passes WP:GNG and likely prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH as well. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Yankees10's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG satisfied by the sources, so SNG is irrelevant. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL consensus is clear on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCOLLATH with national feature article coverage on CBS Sports and ESPN. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 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. Sandstein 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Devi (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTRESS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable sources. No notability. Trillfendi (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as she does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR at this time with no prominent roles in notable productions (at least having articles). In the films mentioned she is well down the cast lists and although the tv series may have been a more prominent role the series does not have an article. In view of this there is a lack of reliable sources coverage, but may become notable in the future., thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 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 keep. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Feinberg[edit]

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

Delete I again apologize for my confusion as to which tag to place on the article. As I stated on the talk page, Feinberg does seem to have a sizable Twitter following (164,000 followers as of now) and is a prolific writer for Huffpost. These two things alone do not earn her a Wikipedia page. In fact, the page is so anemic that I see little reason for its existence. Feinberg doesn't seem notable in any way. She may be a well-liked journalist or even Twitter famous, but if everyone with those qualifications got their own Wikipedia page, we would all have a lot of work to do. Some editors have attempted to add infomation regarding Feinberg's mentions from various news outlets. I don't see the validity in this argument. I especially don't see it when the sources cited are Deadspin (?), Columbia Journalism Review, Business Insider Australia (really?), and Sputnik Turkey in Turkish (already a propaganda wing of the Russian gov't, this article isn't even in English). For these reasons, I believe the article should be deleted. If Feinberg lands a huge scoop or ends up publishing this generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, maybe she'll get a page. She doesn't need one now. KidAd (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit thin but there are numerous reliable sources discussing at least two different significant pieces of her work years apart (please see updated entry; I've removed the Sputnik source and added a number of others) and in both cases there's specific commentary on the work she did, not just the subject she was reporting on. So there's no INHERITED, SUSTAINED or BLP1E issue. I don't particularly see the need to delete this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the substantial CJR profile came between the two pieces of reporting that got a good deal of attention (on Comey and Dorsey), so that's another independent indication of the attention to her work in general. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does appear to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST criteria 3: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The Comey and Dorsey stories are well-known and the subject of and referenced in many other articles. Sdegennaro (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not transcluded into an AfD log until 03:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to have enough reliable independent coverage. PamD 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, see [19] [20] [21]. wumbolo ^^^ 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has numerous reliable sources - Washington Post, BBC, Forbes "30 under 30 2019". Circlecubed (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize for adding the Sputnik reference - it was the second time I was removing the Speedy Deletion notice, and I was about to board a plane, so added the first references that came up. I don't apologize for it not being in English, though - it is clear policy that non-English sources are acceptable. (And yes, really, Business Insider Australia! What on earth is wrong with that?) I removed the Speedy Delete twice as it was clear to me from a quick google search that her work has on more than one occasion been "the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles", and that she therefore meets WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [22] No current consensus on Business Insider, but the website has been questioned as to reliability. I am not familiar with the Australian edition; it just came off as even more obscure to me. I direct no hate towards Australia or their collective journalistic pursuits. KidAd (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as a notable journalist well worth a page. --Lockley (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a notable journalist with plenty of decent sources. Tomclarke (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Lots of RS coverage, including coverage that characterizes her as a notable figure (e.g. The 2019 Forbes 30 Under 30 list, a CJR profile). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Piles of good sourcing. Blythwood (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of her in the Columbia Journalism Review is very detailed and exactly the type of thing that establishes the notability of a journalist. The Washington Post coverage of her interview of Jack Dorsey is also a solid reference. Some of the other references are weaker but taken as a whole, the references now in the article show that she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 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 Sons of the Tiger. Sandstein 08:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Shinchuko[edit]

(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. Character appears 26 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Sons of the Tiger. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable and does not meet my criteria for a list entry. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this character has not received enough coverage to warrant even for a list entry. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Sons of the Tiger. Valid search term, no other likely target.--Killer Moff (talk) 16:19, 22 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.