Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 January	24 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada[edit]

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

This was a bit of a messy situation last year, that ended up in a very muddled lack of consensus, but it's been over six months since the last discussion so it's probably safe to take another swing at it. The first two discussions were perhaps a bit premature in hindsight, because they were initiated while some of the concurrent AFD discussions on the other five housing cooperatives that used to be in this list were still open, so they foundered on the question of just how many cooperatives needed to have articles to justify a list of them while illogically ignoring the fact that all but one of the articles were irreversibly strapped onto a speeding train into the garbage can — however, all of the ones that got nominated for deletion did finally get deleted, turning this into a list of just one thing.
The third discussion took place after the list had been pruned to a singularity, conversely, but then the only editor who was actually still arguing for a keep anymore started trying to convert the list into a comprehensive directory of every single housing cooperative that exists in Canada, regardless of whether it has a Wikipedia article to link to or not, and referencing each entry only to its own self-published website rather than to any reliably sourced evidence of their notability — so the nominator of the third discussion simply withdrew their nomination entirely, even though the balance was still tilting 2-1 toward deletion.
However, talk page consensus came down unanimously against turning the page into an indiscriminate directory list of all housing cooperatives, and instead solidly supported applying the "only cooperatives that have Wikipedia articles to link to" restriction per WP:CSC #1 — thus turning it right back into a list of just one thing again. So it's a list that simply isn't serving a purpose anymore, because a list of one thing isn't a useful list. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now that it's down to a lone entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single-item list, or, in some previous incarnations, per WP:NOTDIR.--Pontificalibus 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single entry list, no longer serves any purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Honestly, i dont think this is really important enough to be here. PlotHelpful (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., The title says list but there is no list , Alex-h (talk) 23:11, 30 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athos M. Amorím[edit]

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

As per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Furthermore, the article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence that the subject is notable and no assertions in the article that he is either. It tells us he was born, got married, served in the army and got a degree. I can't see how that warrants inclusion in an encyclopaedia. And even those claims aren't adequately sourced! Pupsbunch (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Golden Land Myanmar[edit]

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

Admittedly my understanding of pageant notability isn't great but this doesn't appear to be a qualifier for anything notable nor is there much in the way of independent or significant coverage Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find decent non-primary sources on this event; the article seems to have been created by cut-and-pasting the much older wikipedia article, Miss Universe Myanmar. The other Mynmar pagents such as Miss Universe Myanmar yield a lot of good quality, and recent, press coverage (e.g. mmtimes.com). Given the persistence of the multiple editors on the related article, Wai Yan Aung, this will need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Yan Aung[edit]

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

this person is not independently notable and the creator keeps re-spamming, so nominating for full deletion and then redirect to Miss Golden Land Myanmar Praxidicae (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a COI issue with this editor who also created the linked article, Miss Golden Land Myanmar. Text is very promotional. Can't see any reference to this subject outside of founding the beauty pagent; not sure if the pagent article would also pass notability. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the pageant as well but it's one of those niche areas of notability on Wikipedia that I'd rather stick myself in the eye with a fork than delve into. Praxidicae (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :) Britishfinance (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just stuck a fork in my eye. :( Praxidicae (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, no evidence that the subject is noteworthy or of public interest. Pupsbunch (talk) 20:54, 29 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Jones (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Speedy suggested - does not even meet {{Two-dabs}} criteria - don't understand why this exists. I am inexperienced in AfD, and was unsure whether to bundle the two redirects with bogus targets. The first only links to a 2018 TV show/competition where there are 3x black text table entry for (non-notable) "Chloe Jones", requiring browser Ctrl+f search to see quickly. The second redlink is to a normally-unseen, collapsible list where there is one entry for (non-notable) "Chloe Jones" as a one-time goal scorer in a 2011 football match. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the required template to the nominated article page. WP:AFDHOWTO explains the process, for future reference. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThY, Bakazaka - I had about six tabs open following the stages, and thought I had done as req'd, but must have failed to save the page.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. I deleted a lot of the entries, but there are still three left (marginal but still), four if you count the song. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all entries are legitimate dab page entries and might help a reader. PamD 18:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION or having an article - all valid. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With only a small number of people arguing to keep, the outcome is obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small number[edit]

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

What a weird piece of original research, 100% unreferenced for sooooo many years. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, stamp out, obliterate. This is not a math term. Also delete the related, equally nonsensical, but much more elaborate Large numbers. Then possibly redirect to Names of small numbers and Names of large numbers, respectively? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nuke it from orbit. So much WP:OR. Something should be the redirect target; Law of small numbers is also an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly and objectively makes a number "small"? I don't think this can be reasonably answered without violating WP:NPOV (or introducing even more WP:OR), and a page describing various opinions on small numbers would constitute a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly and objectively makes a number "large"? StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic; which is impossible to be encyclopedic. Per all above.∯WBG^converse 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the fence re Large numbers, but this one is a bit silly and a lot arbitrary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst Large number is clearly legit and has a lot of pageviews, I find no sources to indicate this is a notable term, nor any appropriate target to redirect it to. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usage of "small numbers" is debatable and definition subject to abuse[1], there are several classes that arise, like for large numbers. First come from small number statistics or Strong Law of Small Numbers which place it in the positive integers from 1 to 100, countable from the human sense. The second set would be from science and technology, numbers with negative powers of 10 exponents, from -1 to -100. Third is the mathematical theory realm with (ε, δ)-definition of limit and infinitesimals. StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine L. Jack[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; only very brief quotations and name checks. The article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep borderline notability. Wikipedia has an article for each and every microrabbi. Leadership of other religions are just as notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing notability upon? There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum to establish notability for such subjects, per Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I have to say that I find it ridiculous that a sportsman who played for ten minutes during one game in their career is considered notable, or who competed at the Olympics - and before anyone says this is impressive, let me remind you of Eddie the Eagle and Eric Moussambani - while they are sufficiently notable on their own merit for Wikipedia Articles, that doesn't mean that people who are not quite so bad as them are too. In any case, accomplishing something impressive is not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have articles on most people with a PhD. With that said, under the current criteria this ladies position in the LDS is insufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite being more notable than many included but minor athletes, and thus my vote, in line with current policy. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Keep, based on newly provided sources. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified multiple additional sources. Jill Mulvay Derr and others Women of the Covenant: The Story of the Relief Society provides significant information, as does Canadian Mormons and Women at the Pulpit. That is 3 books with significant mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Keep Of the three books named above, there is significant coverage in the two books I can see on Google Books, which is the bare minimum needed, and I will WP:AGF that the third also has SIGCOV. Also, as well as information about roles and the dates at which the subject assumed them, etc, there is information about changes in policy and practice during the subject's leadership, so it is clear that there are achievements she is notable for, not just roles she held.

It is not true to say that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia - they may be essays rather than guidelines, but in my observation, WP:NBISHOP and WP:BISHOPS are generally followed at AfDs. WP:RELIG/N also notes that "Many international religions have their own or strongly affiliated publishing houses. This makes determining independence difficult at times." Two Protestant and two Catholic publications/publishers are identified as "considered independent" (though it doesn't say how), but it doesn't specifically identify any which are considered not independent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yingcharoen F.C.[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability. Yingcharoen F.C. has not played in a national league, the leagues given are all regional, and the club has not played in the Thai FA Cup. Cabayi (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has TV coverage on national channels Nation TV[2] and TNN24.[3] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:GiantSnowman. Deb (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham[edit]

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

A non-notable film that does continues to not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film, nor any reviews in said required sources. The sole keep !vote in the previous AfD discussion stated, "looks like there are more Indian sources to add, article is not unduly promotional." However, in a later comment, the user then stated, "... so, I was wrong, it doesn't look like it's covered more in Indian sources after all." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--> NFILM has technically boiled down to allotting an article for every film that has got 2 or more reviews across reliable source(s). I do not personally agree with this interpretation and IMHO, we are not competing with IMDB. But that's a story for another day and for now, I will apply the same standards to this film. Running an online-search for sources, we cannot lay our hands on anything. But the broader question is whether is it realistic to expect online reviews of a 92' film or to assume that all Tamil dailies of 92 have been digitized or rational to search for coverage in net-era-publications ( how many films produced this year (with a plethora of hype) will be any mentioned across RS(s) 20 years later?). The film starred two legendary actors and the music was directed by a highly acclaimed artist. In light of that, it's plainly crazy to assume that such a film vanished without making any buzz; flop or not. Systemic Bias and all that.∯WBG^converse 17:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:55, 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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaniWeb[edit]

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

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

del no independen evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search yielded a small amount of coverage about a data breach in 2015, but everything else was forum posts or Facebook-type pages directly connected with the company. – Teratix ₵ 13:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion has been presented. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

Zeus 19:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Totally senseless nomination. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAGAkids incident[edit]

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

This page may now be at 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered at Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids. There is no actual incident here, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DELAY. Completely routine he said-she said, except there isn't any crime alleged. One could make the argument that it's noteworthy that tabloids printed garbage coverage of the event, but that's also completely typical and WP:ROUTINE. Notice how that policy includes "tabloid journalism". Also, since all of these "opinion" articles at respectable outlets were published solely for profit, they should be discounted here. I think everyone can agree here that this is just another Trump-related news cycle with zero lasting impact on anything. There might even be in-depth coverage from people who have been respected in the past, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, of which there likely won't be any. Note that countless Trump-related "incidents" were deleted in the past, and a couple were similarly related to insignificant school kids. wumbolo ^^^ 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, minimum merge Granted, we should have waited to create this, but we're 5 days out and the story is still drawing significant headlines. It's a two-part story, one about the event, and the other about how the media are reacting to the event, with both stories feeding themselves back and forth (eg just now criticism related to a interview with the spotlighted student causing more media stirring). I do think that some of the reactions can be cut down (I edited some of this yesterday to try to add objective event pinpoints to help guide how the reaction section should be driven) -there's still tons of reactions, everyone's brother having their word towards it, and we shoudln't have these all. But that should wait until after the event has died out from headline news, so we can figure the right perspective. Also I would argue that the headline is not POV compliant (even if that's common phrasing by reporting), it should be something like "2019 Indigenous Peoples March event", and potentially considered merged back to the March page if this ends up short enough. --Masem (t) 18:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, decide if it needs its own article later. Also, I've renamed it to 2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident for now, since the previous name was chosen with no discussion, doesn't seem to appear in any sources, failed WP:NPOV (it appears to be a hashtag some people are trying to push, but not one that has gotten enough coverage to even be mentioned in mainstream sources, let alone reaching WP:COMMONNAME. Strong delete for anything under the old title - that name refers to a non-notable hashtag, and we clearly lack the sources to write an article about the hashtag, nor is there any reason to think they'll ever exist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. While the article name could be up for discussion, a bright light is not needed to see that this is an event of the highest iconicity. One wonders how the nominator could in a case this rare even think of WP:ROUTINE, let alone wanting the subject to get only some attention in an article on a subject to which it is only related by coincidence. This nomination does not convince me, on the contrary: I get the impression of someone wanting to silence a subject for no reason but personal unease. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Jürgen Eissink: please don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. Comments on AFDs should be limited to policy-based arguments on the article, not other editors. See WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point, and thank you for that, but please notice that nominator sets the standard with "I think everyone can agree here", which is no less speculation than me giving my impression. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Keep for now, but reevaluate later. While WP:ROUTINE does state tabloid journalism isn't considered noteworthy, I will have to disagree with you that this incident will be treated as a fad and that this is not simply "tabloid journalism", though I do think caution should be exercised when editing this article. None of us can conclusively claim this incident will have zero lasting impact when the media is still actively reporting on this. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE clearly states these events " may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Unlike other Trump-related incidents, this one seems unique in the fallout that has occurred, especially in regards to the threats of bodily harm and even death directed at children by celebrities. Neither do I believe this incident should simply be redirected to Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids. At the very least, the incident should be considered a case study in sensationalism, but we should wait for the dust to settle before pushing to have this article deleted. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Keep – I think the above option is better, but I have no prejudice against a merge. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I have since revised my initial opinion on this matter and believe this incident is deserving of its own article. The fact is this event happened when three separate groups - March for Life, Indigenous Peoples March, and the Black Israelite group - all came together and this incident occurred. To say this event should be merged as a subset of the Indigenous Peoples March page to me goes against WP:UNDUE because it would downplay this event's notability. Most people's interest in this matter seems to comes from the incident itself, not that it occurred in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples March. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Current events are always a tough call, and there's good-faith disagreement over how NOTNEWS should be applied. In this case, noteworthiness doesn't depend on tabloid coverage; the incident has received substantial, international, non-opinion reporting and analysis from respected mainstream sources. Since editors seem interested in writing about the topic, we can use this as an opportunity to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Masem best described in their !vote above this event is still attracting a fair share of coverage and is still very much a current event, so it is simply too soon to say, although I must say that I think this article at the moment still passes the notability guidelines described in WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. As other !votes have stated above (if the article is kept) I would not be opposed to a future discussion to merge in a month or two time. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now. This is a controversy that erupted at that event, the Native American / indigenous context is important, and I think it would be well-covered there. I also think we might consider a more general article on viral videos of this type that show people with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways - the bullying of Latino/a students to "Build the Wall" in late 2016 comes to mind.--Pharos (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... viral videos of this type that show people [kids] with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways" — with a bias like this I suggest you stay away from this subject. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday trying to guess which bias you assumed I had, though with your other edits I think I know now. I think our language difference might be a partial cause - "people" does not mean adults and "apparently" means by appearance, not necessarily in fact. My point was that this is more or less a genre of viral video now, whether warranted or not in any individual instance. This is why we have WP:AGF, which you seem to be ignoring quite regularly on this page.--Pharos (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the first footage that emerged, to me it was clear that those kids were being kids, dancing to an approaching drum. Their outfit to me was irrelevant. You approach the subject from the Trump symbol side, which to me is secondary. Your first opinion, apparently, is that the group appeared to behave in a bigoted way, something which never came to my mind. Maybe my reply was too strong, but I think it would be fair to also Assume Good Faith on the schoolboys' behaviour to start with, which you obviously could not. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Before the edit conflict I was saying “MAGAkids” is a ridiculous title. They are Covington Catholic school students. If anything it should be renamed and merged. Trillfendi (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: the article has already been moved to a new title, its just that the article was nominated for deletion under the old title hence the reason why the old title is the one that shows up in the nomination page. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- "Already mentioned briefly at another article" is not a good reason to delete a lengthy and well sourced article on a notable-in-itself topic. As the guy who boldly forked the article from Indigenous Peoples March in the first place, I did so based on attempts to discuss on the talk page first and also based on the fact that the crux of the incident did not actually occur during the IPM or in conjunction with the IPM. I think the topic is clearly notable based on mainstream media coverage (19 million ghits for Covington Catholic Incident), and I think its notability derives from the clash and subsequent culture war implications rather than from the Indigenous Peoples March. The event is "already covered" not only by the Indigenous People's March, but also by the March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, Black Hebrew Israelites, and other wikipedia articles. The IPM article was bloated with incident specific details / reactions unrelated to the planning and conduct of the Indigenous People's March. Merging to any one of these articles (Indigenous People's March, March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, or Black Hebrew Israelites) would bloat it up with incident specific details and media interpretations at the expense of otherwise distinct and clear articles. This is a textbook Recentism editor disagreement, since some people think it is obviously notable and others think it is a news blip. In any case, it is incontrovertably attracting a lot of buzz on we won't know whether it will stick... but in the mean time there is a lot of reliable source coverage trying to dissect what exactly happened -- something that Wikipedia is extremely good at assimilating. Again, refer to WP:RECENT for some thoughts on what to do in this case. I am not committed to the name, but I could not think of a better one that maintained WP:NPOV. Peace and WikiLove, MPS (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Main stream coverage is continuing with further interviews, responses and in-depth analyses. It is notable and has had significant coverage evidenced in the 49 full RS references with heavy use of inline citations in this article. I had created the Indigenous Peoples March article and the section entitled "Incident" which was copied and pasted to begin this article. The March itself is notable, although media coverage of it was lamentably lacking. I could see with the amount of coverage the incident was getting, both via social media and in the main stream press, that this section would have to eventually be forked. A January 20, 2019 New York Times article described the incident as an "explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs — against a national backdrop of political tension... The encounter became the latest touch point for racial and political tensions in America], with diverging views about what really had happened." Major news outlets continue to publishing series of articles and news broadcasts investigating angles of the story in terms of the role of social media itself, cultural intersections, US political polarization, etc. Social media is still alight with it. The use of Storyful and other social media intelligence agencies is in itself an interesting aspect of this story. I strongly oppose the original title MAGA kids as it is biased and disrespectful. If the decision is made to delete this article, I strongly recommend that the content be merged back into the Indigenous Peoples March.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So it sounds like Oceanflynn, the creator of the Indiginous Peoples Day article, is agreeing that the "incident" article is also separately notable, and I, the creator of the forked MAGAkids article, agree that the name is not great (it was not even my first choice, but I was trying to keep participants' proper names out of it so as to maintain NPOV. As I said above "I am not committed to the name" but I think the topic is notable whatever we decide to call it. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It does not seem notable enough to have its own article; Frankly, I'd opine it wasn't even notable enough to be mentioned on current events. However, given the coverage, it merits a mention on a parent article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Indigenous Peoples March for now because the article on the Indigenous Peoples March only covers this one day event and the vast majority of the media coverage for the march covered or mentioned this incident. This incident seems to provide a large part of that article's notability at this point. This new page seems to be largely a duplication of an existing article. The existing ariticle is not large at this point so seems no justification in splitting it at this point. DynaGirl (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to parent article. Yes, mainstream media is still covering this, but that does not always mean it is notable. Also, there has been much hearsay, lies, and confusion in the coverage of this story.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hearsay, the lies and the confusion make up this story and it is pretty much what makes the story notable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- That is true, but was it notable enough to be it's own page? I think it would be fine merged. Of course, I'm not an admin.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probably partly depends on the final name for the AIM Song MAGA Drum Encounter and the description of occurences, but I think the event will retain significance as an example of American culture. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Incident has received attention world wide. And sparkee discussions. Article sourced and the sources are good. I see no point in merging this as it contains info that is not available at the other article. This is whether we like it or not an event that has reached international level.BabbaQ (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldwide attention, ongoing analysis in mainstream sources. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, but this is not routine news, but a singular event which has provoked significant thought and controversy among a very wide range of people. If you were to write a special issue of a magazine, "The USA in 2019," this would merit a mention (at least, if 2019 is like 2018). B^e ⊢ C^ritical 08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it was blown up out of all proportion, but that's what makes it notable. Of considerable cultural importance: "The Covington Catholic fight is American politics in microcosm," etc. St Anselm (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has ongoing international coverage, and the current article is helpful for understanding the context and participants. From an international perspective, 'MAGA teens incident' would have been a useful title, but the article does come up on the search for articles containing those words. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have two events here, the initial reaction and the media backpedaling. All well sourced.--v/r - T P 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant. WesSirius (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This news story exploded nationally and even internationally. There is no way this does not merit its own article under the notability guidelines. I think it's likely that this topic will be brought up and discussed for years to come. If anything, the Indigenous Peoples March article should be merged into this one, not the other way around. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at any rate the nomination isn't very convincing. The nominator cites WP:NOTNEWS, and all NOTNEWS has to say about this situation is "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of... events". And it also says "Editors are encouraged to... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". I'd say that this event is something that some non-zero number of people are going to want to look at even decades from now. Probably. I mean people delving into the social history of these times, as well as other people. It's not like the article is about a pileup on I-95. So NOTNEWS encourages us to create articles like this, and it's kind of odd to cite it as a reason to delete. As to WP:DELAY, that's just a guideline, a guideline with which I don't agree for various reasons, besides which WP:RAPID right below is titled "Don't rush to delete articles" and opens with "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge". So overall this is not a very convincing nomination. I'm not voting on the issue since I haven't examined the article, just making this one point. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I haven't read or even clicked on the article so I have no idea if the content of the article is worth keeping or needs a total overhaul. However, I agree with those who say there has been enough coverage talking about the initial coverage and public reaction to pass NOTE. I don't think merging into the 2019 IPM makes sense because, let's be honest, this incident is what's getting coverage, not the rest of the march. I suspect the article title should be considered since it could be considered biased and I'm not sure there is a COMMON name for it. Edit: Having just clicked the link, I don't think the current title works since the incident involved 3 groups (the students, the IPM and the BHI's). Springee (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPS. There is no clear merge target as the article says this occurred after the two marches. 9³ (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. No convincing argument to delete. I really don’t get why I should care whether it is kept or merged. What’s the benefit of either against the other? Doesn’t seem important. 71.167.14.104 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep, do not merge I am in Europe and almost every major European newspaper and television news networks have covered this as an event (e.g. not as part of something else, but as a moment in itself .... hence, don't merge). If that is not WP:GNG, what is? Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Continued coverage in US and international media. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, but this has enduring notability. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO it is entirely silly this kerfuffle got hyped up to being with. However, coverage by WaPo, NYT, BBC, and the like is not tabloid journalism - and has been on-going through today (initially siding one way, then waffling the other way once the initial coverage came out as biased). It actually is quite possible that this will have a lasting effect due to the very wide misreporting when this broke. At present - given the very wide national and international coverage - we are in a WP:RAPID situation and should keep. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that merging Nathan Phillips (activist) to this article has merit - but best to discuss that after the AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- 10 days later and new developments keep coming. This is the most notable social media event in the US this year so far. Kire1975 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a major news event within a period of intense social and racial division in the United States, with many different perspectives concerning the amount of blame the individual parties shared during the incident. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than merge - The indigenous march article is actually much less important than this incident. From what I've read and seen, that March was over before this occurred. Little of the coverage mentions the March, except to explain why Phillips and his companions were nearby at in the first place. Mattnad (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mattnad above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has a lot of significant media coverage. Also, this has been shown to be a prime example of the unreliability of viral videos and news stories commenting on them by various publications and therefore may have an impact on journalism itself. MikeOwen ^discuss 18:30, 30 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. Although sources such as "Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com" and "Kooztop5.blogspot.com" obviously need to be purged from the article, the fact that dodgy sources are covering a topic isn't a reason to discount decent sources covering the same topic. I also have sympathy for the nominator's argument that sources surrounding fringe topics tend to proliferate by citing each other, but again, no convincing refutation has been made of the reliable sources presented here. As such, I cannot close this as anything other than "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 00:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads[edit]

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

Basically, a hoax. Apparently one that's been around a while and garnered a little bit press. Lots of sources in the article, but none appear to be WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is not a hoax, this is Connecticut (and Western Conne... er, Ohio/Michigan) folklore. Melon heads are akin to Bigfoot or the Headless Horseman. The article is sufficiently cited for what it is, and I've just now added two new sources that should pass the bar (the Connecticut Post, the Detroit Free Press). Markvs88 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources found by the Google Books search linked above have coverage in books published by Sterling Publishing, Rosen Publishing and Rowman & Littlefield, so this is obviously not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ctparanormalsearchers.weebly.com, Kooztop5.blogspot.com, LiveJournal, and Damnedct.com are clearly not WP:RS, and should be removed, along with large unsourced sections such as the one about "Dracula Drive". What remains seems to have a decent amount of reliably-sourced coverage, but needs to be rewritten to sound like an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine. Remember, even reliable sources indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL stories from time to time, so publishing house or newspaper name alone shouldn't be the sole determining factor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your statement, with the exception of Damnedct.com. It is regularly cited by other publications (including the Connecticut Post) which is a part of Hearst. It is most certainly reliable, though it is kitchy. Markvs88 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any web site where "the voice of skepticism and reason" is also an astrologer[4] can be described as reliable, however much anyone else might cite it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said... kitchy. (I never said it was Scientific American!) Markvs88 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not just kitchy, but also obviously unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the topic, let's face it... we have to assume a certain amount of "subculture reporting". Just like in the STEM articles we accept scientific papers that may or may not be accurate (ala [5]) because they just don't have any other outlet. Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of 'em, and based on the sourcing they are clearly more of a hoax than established "folklore". I agree with the nominator that they lack notability for an article. Comparing them to extremely well known figures such as the Headless Horseman is an unconvincing argument as they are obviously nowhere near that level._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Never heard of 'em" must be one of the worst arguments for deletion that I have seen, and we are supposed to be evaluating the notability of the article subject, not the article, which involves looking for sources beyond those currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of Moon Hunters... let's delete that too! After all it is purely fiction. Or, are you saying that "Issaria" is real? Or have you done a survey in Connecticut and the old Western Reserve to see if its a thing? Markvs88 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the fact that a WP:ADHOMINEM argument is also a bad argument to use in deletion, those fictional articles make no attempt to assert that they are widely known by the general public. This article on the other hand, purports to be a "legend". Should a legend not be widely known? There is not enough evidence of such things to establish it as what it claims to be, a "legend" and folklore._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, and that's what the sources say, do they not? Google "melonhead legend" and you get 5.4 million hits. Okay, fine re: Moon Hunters. Let me frame it better: how many things on List of cryptids have you never heard of? My guess is most of them (as it is for me). Melonheads are widely known here in CT... which is again what the sources (including notable newspapers) have stated. Markvs88 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markvs88, you are really not doing this article any favours by citing numbers of Google hits etc. One encyclopedia edited by academics and published by an academic publisher (as I cited below) is worth any number of millions of Google hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zxcvbnm, nobody has made any WP:ADHOMINEM argument here, but people have simply pointed out how ridiculous your argument (not you as a person) was when you said "Never heard of 'em". Do you really think that this encyclopedia should only cover topics that you personally, of all the people in the world, have heard of? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia aims to be at least as inclusive as print encyclopedias, and this print encyclopedia, from an academic publisher and edited by academics, has an entry of well over 1000 words for this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I can't speak for Ohio or Michigan, but this is a well known and well documented urban legend in Connecticut, and the CT sections of the article are correspondingly cited. Kuralyov (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:GNG pass. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lofgren[edit]

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

Obvious failure of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I removed a BLPPROD becuase there are reliable sources in the article, but they're routine and do not establish notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted the article at the author's request. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beattie[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability. She's not known for anything other than recent stupid tweet. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 17:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Vogue article is a reliable source, but there is no information about Sarah Beattie. IMDb is not reliable. Searches turned up reports about her tweet, nothing else. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON for this young comedian. I have failed to find any significant sources online that suggest she's currently notable. Maybe later she'll be mega. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E was written for incidents like this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tweet is more notable than the person who posted it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E...and nom, I guess; "those about to be indef'd, we salute you" :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way TOO SOON. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:47, 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 Ideal gas law. Tone 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Combined gas law[edit]

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

A subset/consequence of the ideal gas law (to where I think a redirect is in order) where the constant k is not related to molar values.

We have other gas law articles, e.g. Boyle's law, separate from the IGL, but that is justified by a well-established meaning and significant historical context, described in the article. On the other hand, the "combined gas law" is used by quite a few sources as synonymous for IGL: many GScholar hits use "R" as the constant symbol, for instance, which is a clear giveaway; furthermore, I could find no "historical context" content in online sources. (Among the two article refs, I have no access to the Lionel Raff textbook, and the Java applet calls it "ideal gas law".) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove if no sources found. This article is so old and basic that I did not even hesitate before about its reliability. --MaoGo (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to ideal gas law, and add a sentence there making note of this term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ideal gas law. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ideal gas law and mention the use of this term per XOR'easter; this is a WP:CFORK that can adequately be addressed there. ComplexRational (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous textbooks that describe combined gas law, and it is commonly given as separate from ideal gas law - [12][13][14][15]. Given these sources, the reason given by the nominator sounds close to OR, and a simple redirect is bound to confuse students looking for these terms. At least a partial merge of its content is necessary if this article is to be redirected. Its relationship to ideal gas law should be explained, and Wikipedia should explain rather than confuse. Hzh (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I agree with a partial merge (as I said above), and would suggest a WP:RSECT to avoid a WP:SURPRISE. ComplexRational (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer a keep because any merge of this sort should be discussed first in the talk page so that those who are knowledgeable with the subject can discuss how to merge the two. Otherwise there is a risk that you might end up with a garbled content and that would do a disservice to students who might consult these articles in their studies. This is particularly important given that this AfD is based on a faulty premise that somehow combined gas law and ideal gas law are the same. They are not - while you can derive ideal gas law from combined gas law by introducing a gas constant R and an n, they are given as different in textbooks and therefore should not be confused. It is also possible to expand the article with the sources available. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Process-wise, it would be totally valid to decide at AfD to merge and then hammer out the exact text later; to my knowledge, whenever an AfD ends up as "merge" that is how it is done, we do not kick it back to WP:RM. As to the rest, I will answer Nick Moyes' comment below. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge, having seen the sources but no historical background yet, I change my vote to merge. --MaoGo (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment In light of the above, I agree about a merge and RSECT. I suggest a new section in Ideal gas law#Equation. Here's some text for the AfD closer per Wikipedia:Merge what? (clearly this can and should be edited further after the AfD closes):

Proposed merge text

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.

Combined gas law[edit]

Combining Charles's law, Boyle's law, and Gay-Lussac's law gives the combined gas law: ^[1]

${\frac {PV}{T}}=k$

where:

$P$ is the pressure of the gas,
$V$ is the volume of the gas,
$T$ is the absolute temperature of the gas,
$k$ is a constant (for a fixed amount of gas).

^ Raymond, Kenneth W. (2010). General, organic, and biological chemistry : an integrated approach (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 186. ISBN 9780470504765. Retrieved 29 January 2019.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, I completely disagree with this proposal to merge into Ideal gas law. This page, as it exists, functions well and encyclopaedically to demonstrate how the 'combined gas law' is derived from derived from Boyles, Charles' and Guy-Lussac's laws and how it can be applied. It's fundamental to science. If anything, the Ideal Gas Law page ought to be merged into this one, and the reference cited by Tigraan in their merge proposal serves only to demonstrate this. And here's another for chemistry dummies that demonstrates the same. That there is no historical section to show how the combined gas law derived from Boyles, Charles' and Guy-Lussac's laws is totally irrelevant if multiple sources demonstrate (as they do) this is a scientifically recognised term and a notable topic in its own right - which, non-chemist though I am - I firmly believe it is. This page stands alone as a simple-to-understand page on an important law, separate from the more theoretical Avogadro's law-based Ideal gas law, albeit they are closely allied. Either keep these two articles distinct, or merge Ideal gas law into this one, not the other way around! The proposed target page is already complex enough, seems less significant than this page under deletion discussion, and the target written in a less non-encyclopaedic tone, using the 2nd person voice (you) as if it were a classroom workbook (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the math of how the CGL is derived from Boyle's etc. is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Once you remove the math, there is little left in the article, hence I believe it should be covered in a parent article.

My point about the "historical context" stuff is not that such context is needed to have an article (it is not). The point is that when you remove the math, all there is left to a combined gas law article is "The formula is PV/T=cst and you can derive it from Boyle+Charles+Gay-Lussac", which is short enough to be covered by a parent article. Since there is a natural merge target, we should not keep a permastub around. (Whether fixable problems currently ail the target article is not an obstacle to such a merge.)

As to the suggestion to merge the other way around, well, I could not disagree more. The ideal gas law as scientific concept has been discussed in science history books (two examples), it was used as measurement target in a pedagogy study. It is standalone-notable from a historical point of view alone (we have an article about phlogiston even if no modern chemistry textbook uses it). If you can find similar sources for the combined gas law, I will gladly change to !vote keep, but all I could find are textbooks (the only non-textbook interesting mention I found from GScholar is [16] but I do not have access to it). Also, to be perfectly clear, if a textbook gave such information it would be an appropriate source, but understandably textbooks usually contain the mathematical derivation and it's all. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that ideal gas law is the more important topic, since some textbooks mention the ideal gas law but don't mention the combined gas law. I'm assuming that's because you can derive the ideal gas law from the laws of Boyle, Charles and Gay-Lussac, and then add the Avogadro's hypothesis. However, the argument of whether it is in science history books or not is irrelevant, and the notability of the subject can be established by the topic being covered in textbooks. I'm also pretty sure that a topic found in textbooks is something that has already been discussed in other scholarly books and articles, and it is just a matter of whether someone takes the trouble to use them to expand the article. Hzh (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree textbooks are a sufficient basis for notability, but the question is whether they give anything to write about. What would counceivably the article be expanded about? If your position is "just have a permastub, where's the harm in that", well, I do not think there is a policy against it. However, "there must be lots of other interesting stuff in other sources yet unfound" is unlikely to fly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the assertion is that it will be a permastub, and that there can be nothing more added, neither of which you have shown to be true. It is not a stub at the moment, the mathematical part is necessary to show how this law is derived, and although the derivation part can be trimmed a bit, it still won't be a stub even after trimming. Hzh (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track Entertainment[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are only passing mentions. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this as needing sources five years ago. That has yielded nothing of value. bd2412 T 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial entry, promo piece and lacks notability for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vaughan-Richards[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor who wrote the article, I feel that the charge of COI is quite disingenuous, Vaughan-Richards's architectural works are less popular than John_Godwin_and_Gillian_Hopwood and Fry, Drew and Partners, the other two notable colonial post-colonial British Nigerian/expatriate architects. I knew about him a few years ago because his name always comes up in tropical architecture and African architecture (colonial and Post Colonial) but his public works were not many like the other two, he was more into private architecture, so I was hesitant to write about him. But I came to understand why his name keeps coming up is partly because he co-wrote Building Lagos with his brother in law, Akinsemoyin which comes up in at-least 15 books in a google books [[17]] as a source of reference. In addition, he was the editor/started West African Builder and Architect, the first architectural journal in West Africa and wrote the most articles in the jounral. though it was short-lived, it was the first journal that dealt with architecture of West Africa.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, There are some references to this subject in books in print - Swimming Between Worlds, Lagos: A Cultural and Literary History, World Architecture 1900-2000: Central and Southern Africa, The Arts of Africa: An Annotated Bibliography, Volume 2. There appears to be room for growth. Possibly move to draft, if the article is not improved over the period of this discussion. bd2412 T 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexplaugh12:: It would be helpful if the article was improved by the addition of some of the sources that I have provided above. bd2412 T 17:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete Subject has zero News results and book references are extremely minor (a few quotes from subject). No significant notability to warrant an article. Article has single author with no other contributors, and author removes NOTABILITY template on his or her own without allowing other contributors the opportunity to find better references. --PhobosIkaros (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is deceased, so I do not know how far you are looking at historical news sources.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News sources are irrelevant when we have much better academic sources, such as those cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this article I'm not surprised that the author got annoyed with your addition of an obviously incorrect "notability" tag. Notability was perfectly clear from creation. Actions like yours only serve to drive knowledgeable editors away from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Article has single author with no other contributors". And your point is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs to be improved, but I don't think it fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entry in Grove Art Online is enough to show that the outside world considers the subject to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, and the other sources cited in the article go even further in underlining notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources prove his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After reading the discussion there appears to be a rough consensus to delete. The only viable WP:PAG based argument presented by those favoring retention looks to hinge on the of interpretation of point 3 of WP:PROF. Unfortunately, I find the interpretive arguments presented by those favoring deletion to be generally persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ranganathan[edit]

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

I cannot understand about how this person meets general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific-notability guidelines.

AFAIS, he is an associate professor (which fails WP:NACADEMIC), born to a may-be-notable chemist, (which fails WP:NOTINHERITED) who is incidentally also a run-of-the-mill ~~journalist~~ columnist over news-portals (which fails WP:NJOURNALIST) and got into a bizarre controversy; that nobody bothered about except a right-wing-non RS (OpEd). He is also supposedly a free speech absolutist who eulogizes Ambedkar but those are not pathways to encyclopedic notability or so I believe. Thus, I'm left with his' writing three books, which hardly made any buzz or were any acclaimed (Fails WP:NAUTHOR; I spot a few reviews of a part. book though) and some trivial mentions in media-reports about his being part of a research group (fails WP:SIGCOV).

I further note that he has given an interview to RepublicTv (FoxNews of India) and was an invited guest at a lit-fest. Has trivial mentions as a right-wing thinker but that's it.

If anyone does a GSearch, he/she might be expected to find several mentions in OpIndia. It's a non-reliable source.∯WBG^converse 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language used by you is clearly derogatory and biased. He is not a journalist, but a columnist. I guess you don't understand the difference. Many similar articles, with much worse citations are still active on Wikipedia, why is this article being singled out, despite having sources such as World Economic Forum He has also appeared on panels in various news channels. There are articles dedicated to his views on mainstream media platforms as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IndianHistoryEnthusiast, what SN says below. Also, appearing in panel on a TV is hardly an indicaator of encyclopedic notability. Also, see WP:INTERVIEW. ∯WBG^converse 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianHistoryEnthusiast: all things being equal, what other articles are ike is an argument to avoid in discussions such as these. Just FYII. ——SerialNumber54129 13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources from mainstream media, coverage in Republic TV and The Hindu. He has won various awards, as mentioned in the article, with credible sources such as world economic forum, confirming the same.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndianHistoryEnthusiast, none of those awards remotely confer any notability. ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're trying to do here. You allow other articles with worse sources to remain on Wikipedia, as it is written by people you know, you will target me if I apply the same criteria here, but will bully me here to find more sources, you have already made up your mind about it. It doesn't matter how many sources I find, whether it is The Hindu, Republic, India Today, World Economic Forum, TED, Times of India. You are going to delete the article.

The person clearly appears regularly on TV, with the channel having the highest TRP, has more than a 100k followers on twitter, has written multiple books. Newspapers like The Hindu have taken his interview. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? You wouldn't allow me to move similar articles to draft or for deletion, but will delete this because you have an axe to grind. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you guys don't learn from the press coverage.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to leave this here.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding his paper published in nature.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndianHistoryEnthusiast, can you give an example of a worse-written article that we are actively allowing to stay in WP?

I know none over here (in a off-wiki sense) and I have no enmity with either you or the subject.

You need to understand that WP:GNG seeks significant coverage. You need to accept that interviews are not counted towards establishment of notability, because they are almost-always intellectually independent, as over here. And, an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor.

I would have given some minimal thoughts; if he had spoken over TED; as you claim. But he has spoken over TEDx (which is radically watered-down version of the former).

None of the awards received by him are any revered by the professional community or at the topmost tier of the field.

Having hordes of twitter followers is not a criterion of our notability. Those numbers are ridiculously easy to manipulate.

And, you can nominate any article of your choice at WP:AFD after following WP:BEFORE. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So many academics publish papers in reputable journals and you might wish to see our relevant criterion.∯WBG^converse 14:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about interview given to The Hindu and Republic TV. Authorship of three books, and his work on Malaria and Tuberculosis that got covered in multiple national and international media. His page on World Economic Forum and Observer Research Foundation.. He has also appeared as a panelist in ORF discussions.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"an interview in RepublicTV which has morphed into a right-wing-propaganda medium does not do any favor."-Last I remember, Republic TV was described as a News Channel on Wikipedia. Unless you edit it and replace it with "right-wing-propaganda medium", this argument doesn't make sense. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the stuff that's being thrown at you. Reading WP:INTERVIEW would have given you the answers of your first query. He authored 3 books, so what? There are millions of published authors; do you believe that confers some special notability? I can't get a single review of 2 of his books and that says a lot. Which international media featured him for his work? Every-time somebody claims that they have discovered a noble cure XYZ for disease ABC; media flocks on the person. If you read the relevant sections of newspapers from across the world over the past few years; you will get at-least a few thousand people who have developed the cure to treat AIDS or developed a new drug agsinst malaria/TB/Cancer or made some sort of unimaginable breakthrough. It's almost always an eerie quietness thereafter and years later, they just dis-appear into the void. ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And being a speaker at ORF; does not contribute to notability, either. ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read Republic_TV#Criticism and the next section too. I can add a host of other sources. ∯WBG^converse 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, next time I will make sure to take your approval before wasting hours, trying to find sources and write an article, because apparently this gives you a power trip. Coverage from Brookings Institute will also probably mean squat to you, since you have already made up your mind. So let's revise. 1. Interviews (even in national newspaper) don't contribute to notability. 2.Having multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability. 3. Coverage of research in multiple national and international media doesn't contribute to notability 3. Being a speaker at multiple ORF events, TEDeX or Pondi Lit fest and Mangaluru Lit Fest doesn't contribute to notability. While pages like this enjoy your patronage. Slow claps for your hypocrisy.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many admins who would be willing to wield Special:Block/IndianHistoryEnthusiast for the above personal attack.

FWIW, (1) interviews seldom contribute to notability (2) multiple published papers doesn't contribute to notability unless at-least 2 or 3 of the papers are heavily cited (3) coverage of research in national media (I'm still clueless, as to the international coverage) usually falls under WP:BLP1E and is almost always a non-significant achievement in the long-run and (4) speakers at these events indeed do not contribute to notability.

MSAR has got multiple obituaries in relevant academic journals; search for them. The current quality of an article is not any relevant indicator of the notability of the subject. ∯WBG^converse 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note for contributors and the closing admin: FYI, IndianHistoryEnthusiast has been blocked for 48 h by Bishonen following the above personal attack. Given the response to WBG following the block notice, it is clear that there is an ongoing issue between these editors. EdChem (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing there to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The introduction says that "Anand is known for his contribution towards development of a vaccine, for Tuberculosis". This seems to be the only claim in the introduction for real noteworthiness. (I don't mean to criticize the preceding sentence, which appears to be a straightforward description, and as such is proper.) If he is indeed known for this contribution (which we later read "was widely reported by the media"), then what is this contribution, and how has it been portrayed in scientific/medical publications? -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF has been a member of the Indian Academy of Sciences AND MEETS point 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association.Indian Academy of Sciences Anand and WP:GNG.2402:3A80:474:ED80:D9FB:7AD4:C9F7:5 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:PROF criterion 3 as the Indian Academy of Sciences membership was an Associateship position from 2002 to 2006 rather than a Fellowship. His Associateship page does mention tuberculosis work, so if it had led to a vaccine in the ensuing decade, it is odd that his name is not mentioned in the articles tuberculosis or BCG vaccine or tuberculosis vaccines. I can find work on characterising the Mycobacterium tuberculosis aspartate decarboxylase enzyme (published in Protein Expression and Purification in 2002, doi:10.1016/S1046-5928(02)00039-6) and on its crystal structure (published in PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics in 2006, doi:10.1002/prot.21126), and on the interactions of proteins encoded by the phthiocerol dimycocerosate locus of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (published in Molecular Genetics and Genomics in 2004, doi:10.1007/s00438-004-1088-3). There are more recent publications in journals including Nature and PLoS / PLoS One but none with substantial citations. One page I saw indicated an h-index of 7, which is hardly the stuff of WP:PROF-passing wikibios. I am willing to be persuaded of a pass under WP:GNG or another subject-specific guideline, though nothing I have seen to date is persuasive, and certainly I do not see a case for inclusion under WP:PROF. EdChem (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem There have only been 346 associates since it was founded in 1934.Former Associates 346 Associates and there are 66 current associates it is very prestigious in India.Current Associates 66 Associates.He was a member of the elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association .Both fellows and associates are notable nowhere does WP:PROF say only Fellows are notable it says members are notable and he was a member.Further meets WP:GNG.2402:3A80:454:94F1:C594:3D83:F8D4:6B30 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, criterion 3 of WP:PROF states: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE). The Indian Academy of Sciences is not at the level of the Royal Society nor the National Academy of Sciences, though it is a major scholarly society for which Fellowship confers notability. If Ranganathan becomes a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences, he will be notable for WP under WP:PROF. You contend that the Associateship he held confers notability in the same way. Certainly it is selective and elected but it is also an early-career opportunity available for potential or likely future Fellows. I do not think it is sufficient for automatic notability, but I will initiate a discussion to see what others think. EdChem (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Notability Criterion 3 and the Indian Academy of Sciences. Any and all contributions to that discussion are welcome. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?. I don't think notability can be found in WP:Prof and not in #3: maybe WP:Author? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No concrete evidence of notability. Capitals00 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria No. 3 for WP:Prof The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor Anand's profile at Indian Academy of Sciences. His work has also received significant coverage in media. Brookings Institute, NewsMinute, The Hindu among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete - there is a lot of stuff swirling around here but he never seems quite to reach the various notability criteria. News reports about the TB thing, for example, are the sort of guff that journalists like to regurgitate from press releases but science is a slow-moving thing and there is no evidence that it has gotten anywhere. Similarly, he has been on the lower rungs of the IAS ladder, which makes it more of a limited scholarship award than membership. He's not met our criteria, as far as I can see, although he may do one day. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found in WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk).

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) 12:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Eshleman[edit]

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

This person has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first off the article lacks any reliable sources, we can't have articles sourced just to factulty pages. One contribution to a specialized encyclopedia does not notability make. Nothing suggests his impact is high enough to pass Academic notability guidelines #1, and nothing in the article at all suggests there is any possiblity of his meeting any other academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single well-cited encyclopedia article and an edited volume are neither enough for WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be nothing else of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page was created in 2005, has no sources - who cares? the question here is whether this chap is notable. I think not because although his encyclopedia article on "Moral Philosoply" is widely cited, none of his journal articles have been widely cited. Looks like he is a reputable philosophy prof, but not a notable scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 29 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. Tone 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue[edit]

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

Ideally merged with tax competition. The article does not show that the report is particularly notable to warrant an article. If notability for the report may be demonstrated, then the article can be kept. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Trillfendi (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with tax competition per nom GirthSummit _(blether) 02:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources here--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the first four hits from the Google Scholar search linked by Path slopu above (I didn't need to look any further) are academic papers specifically about this report, rather than the general topic of tax competition: [18], [19], [20], with the final one being a retrospective paper written after ten years, so long-term impact is demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - since the scholar search shows this passes the ridiculously low bar of WP:NBOOK (which creates an open avenue for POV articles).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidji[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 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 delete per G5. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Theatre Calcutta[edit]

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

This article was created by user Banglar Babu who has since been blocked for socking. The article is rubbish. The book exists but is not as described in the Plot section and the citations given do not back up the material they are supposed to support. I do not think this article meets WP:NBOOK, but if the subject is notable, the article needs to be completely rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a relatively recent publication. I would expect a notable book to have some reviews or at least some amount of news coverage. I am unable to find any. I checked the website of the publisher, named "Pango Publisher", but it seems to be a small independent publisher. Interestingly, the only books mentioned on the website seem to be those by the same author. I believe this is a self published book by a young author (who possibly set up the publisher as well). At this time the book itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. On a personal note, I would encourage the author of this book to send the manuscripts to some established publisher for reviews.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as WP:G5 – the sock master Shaunak Chakraborty was indeffed on 2 December 2018, before this was created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Greschner[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia – a few passing mentions, no in-depth coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A former prison group leader with no significant coverage and only passing mentions in a few articles about other people. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The only source with any depth I found in searches is a Southern Poverty Law Center article, largely based on what Greschner says about himself. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BLPCRIME. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not ever extremist who mirdered another person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Falkland, Fife#Sport. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Golf Club[edit]

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

Article on local golf club that doesn't demonstrate notability, merely listing the facilities, and has no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jellyman (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Very short. 2562 yards off the back tees, par 34. No indication that anything notable has happened there. Nigej (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some basic 3rd party listing entries such as this, but neither that nor anything else found in searches indicates encyclopaedic notability for this club and 9 hole course, by WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. The club is mentioned at the Falkland, Fife article which seems sufficient. AllyD (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Falkland, Fife#Sport. The snippet of information contained in this article would fit neatly into that section. bd2412 T 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per bd2412 - can't find anything reliable and independent, just listings in directories etc. Falkland, Fife#Sport looks like the right place for it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I do not think the club is notable enough to have its own article, but the suggestion to mention it in Falkland, Fife#Sport and redirect there seems a good one. Dunarc (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if someone could do this with a source, we'd have a phenomenal result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 29 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 Party divisions of United States Congresses. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political power in the United States over time[edit]

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

Merely trivial non-encyclopedic content. Subject is discussed in further detail at Divided government in the United States, which provides pretty much the same stats. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is headed by a tag saying may need to be completely re-written to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There might be a space in Wikipedia for an article of this nature, but it needs more detail (as it stands, the article does not spell out which years the Democrats and Republicans were in power) and the article could do with a more specific title. Vorbee (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Party divisions of United States Congresses which seems to be much the same content. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Andrew D; the only content that might be mergeable is the popular vote table, and I don't think that's necessary. No need to delete the history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 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. May be notable in the future but not now. Happy to restore to draft space in an editor requests it. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javlon Guseynov[edit]

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

The subject has never played in a fully professional league and thereby fails WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Whereas he was traded into a professional league and may gain notability there, it did not yet happen, and the article must be deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice or draftify, he's just a bit WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 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 keep. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Rhoades[edit]

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

University athletic directors are rarely, if ever, notable. Not seeing anything satisfying WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an automatically notable position, no in depth sources. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than his employer's website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles based on their current state. Independent, reliable sources are abound here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a discussion at WT:CFB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. A sample includes: 1) "Mack attack: Two years in, Baylor AD chasing challenges with gusto" Waco Tribune-Herald, 2) "There’s not much sadness that Mack Rhoades is leaving Mizzou" The Kansas City Star, 3) "Baylor AD Mack Rhoades: NCAA investigation will 'lead us where it leads us'" Associated Press, 4) "Univ. Of Missouri AD Mack Rhoades Shocks School By Leaving For Same Position At Baylor" Sports Business Daily, 5) "AD Mack Rhoades' surprising move from Missouri to Baylor: Three things to know" CBS Sports. The nomination is incorrect in citing WP:BIO, as it includes WP:BASIC that says meeting GNG is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG per sources referenced by Bagumba. ADs of Power Conference schools are notable more often than not; they are in charge of making newsworthy decisions for athletic departments whose revenues are in the hundreds of millions. There are 35 public universities with athletic department revenues higher than the NHL's Arizona Coyotes. Rhoades is particularly notable for his proximity to one of the most public scandals in college athletics in recent memory. —Ostealthy (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has served as athletic director at four Division I FBS universities (Baylor, Missouri, Houston, Akron) over the past 15 years. Passes WP:GNG. See, e.g., [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and many more. Cbl62 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator--I have found that athletic directors almost always produce enough press to surpass WP:GNG and that clearly has been shown to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Bagumba and Cbl62. Contrary to the nominator's statement, nearly all NCAA D-I athletic directors do indeed meet WP:GNG, which he would likely have discovered had he done a WP:BEFORE search prior to filing this AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba and Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many many Division I athletic directors on Wikipedia, with nothing else to show for their name. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Would be SNOW if it wasnt for the delete vote. General consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of European automobiles[edit]

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

With thousands of entries, this list would become rather unwieldy and unpractical if it was only halfway complete. Note that this list includes more than just the individual models, e.g. for the Lamborghini Countach you get five entries. We already have individual, long timelines for separate brands, e.g. List of Fiat passenger cars. Fram (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but if this article is kept, it would need a re-write - as it stands, this article seems mostly to be about Lamborghinis. Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and... it's not going to be all about Lamborghinis, I plan to fill it out with other cars. Of course, I'm going to re-write it. But only after I get each and every brand out onto the timeline... If it's that much of a bother, DGG told me he would put it in my user space and I can work on it somemore (without anymore trouble I hope?). Please don't delete my page, I want to fill it out to the best of my abilities. HizppaN (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (MYT)
Keep -- butt he first step would probably be to userify and draftify until other brands can be added. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt actually give the reader anything but a timeline of car introduction from some unconnected countries, the reader would be better using Category:Cars by year of introduction. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By good reasoning of wp:CLNT, if there is a category it makes sense for there to be a list-article, which can include photos and references and redlinks and other material that a category cannot convey. --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CLNT, "Disadvantages of a list" #6: "Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable". Which is the reason for this AfD nomination. Fram (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is far more useful than a category since more information can be placed on it. Far easier to navigate, you able to see things by years, and even see what the first and last year they were produced there. Perfect valid list article since it has plenty of blue links and aids in navigation to those articles. Dream Focus 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has really expanded since the time of the deletion nomination. [29]. Dream Focus 16:16, 29 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) 09:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Saeed (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and has received press coverage for a single event (Khan Meter) thus falls under Wikipedia:BLP1E.

This promotional bio was created by the subject himself using Salluhee (talk · contribs) - The same name he used for his official website (www.salluhee.com).

Previously this bio was deleted twice, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed. Saqib (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Needs to be deleted immediately. A non-notable figure with a history of creating articles on himself. Skirts89 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as self-promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looks like an autobiography of someone who lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. I'd say WLP:1E applies since the only notable thing appears to be the "Khan meter".Sandals1 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a case of WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional bio. samee converse 23:36, 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hutchison[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. The closest thing to a notability claim here is that she's recorded and/or performed with various other artists, but most of the ones named aren't independently notable either (they're either members of bands or session musicians), and notability is not inherited anyway. And for "sourcing", all that's present here at all is her self-published website and the self-published website of one of her collaborators, which is not valid support for notability. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage in real media than she's got. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no good sources in the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator has made a convincing case. The article appears to be an attempted promotion for a musician who might be good at what she does, but has not gained sufficient media notice to satisfy WP's notability requirements. All sources found are typical self-published bios and retail/streaming lists. Also note that there are other people of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:19, 30 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) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Goliath[edit]

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

Article about a television documentary, not properly referenced as having any notability claim that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because IMDb offers technical verification that it exists -- but there's no notability claim here beyond the fact that it exists, and the only reference present besides the IMDb profile is a deadlinked TV Guide listing. That's not enough to make a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFilm. I cannot find any independent, reliable references besides IMDB and it seems to have been made by an SPA. While the article seems to attempt to pass the criteria of "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" there is no credible claim to this that I can find. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails NFilm - can't find any reviews in any independent RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Facing Goliath was aired internationally, in 116 countries, via Al Jazeera's program, titled "Witness" and is also widely available online. It was also listed on links to TV guide boards, back dated to the date of airing. These sights have not maintained old programming schedules and the links have gone dead, but it does not change the fact that the film had an international television audience. It does not make sense that the loss of programming links could invalidate the listing of the film here. Links were placed here over a decade ago to prove these points and some of them still point to the films validity on IMDB. Are films invalidated any time a long standing link to a program board goes dead, even when the film is still n wide circulation on the web? The loss of those links shouldn't alter the 10 year history of this entry. The listing is still valid. Abandond (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandond Please take a look at WP:NFILM. Criterion 1 requires that the film was widely distributed, and that it has received full-length reviews from two or more nationally recognised critics. You are saying that it was widely distributed, but you haven't addressed the reviews - if you can find those, there would be an argument to keep the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to reference its existence to IMDb and a television listings grid was never evidence of its notability in the first place. The notability of a film is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about the film in sources it isn't directly affiliated with, such as recognized film critics reviewing it and/or journalism being done about its production, not by indiscriminate film directories or TV Guide. As nice as it would be to have enough quality information out there to write and maintain a solid, well-sourced article about every single film that's ever existed at all, it's not Wikipedia's mandate to privilege the "every single film that's ever existed" part of the equation over the "solid and well-sourced" part — we keep articles about films that can be shown to clear WP:NFILM by getting media coverage about them, and don't keep articles about films that can't. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also may be worth mentioning that in the ten years since their account was created, Abandond has only ever edited this article, or the article that used to exist on Sebastian MacLean, who appeared in the film. Nothing inherently wrong with that, perhaps they are a big fan, but if they have a particular connection with this film, they ought to declare it per WP:COI. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:15, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Myatt[edit]

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

A radio presenter who doesn't appear to satisfy GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. The one ref in the article is actually for another Tony Myatt who doesn't have an article and based upon W:Before is actually more notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual.--N Ø 17:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of securing his inclusion in Wikipedia, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage about him being shown to get him over WP:GNG. I believe this is the first time I've ever seen a Wikipedia article whose only reference was sitting on the hatnote as evidence of the existence of somebody other than the article subject — and even that really shouldn't be there at all, because people who don't have Wikipedia articles to link to do not get disambiguatory hatnotes to distinguish themselves from people who do. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fleck[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no genuinely strong claim of notability. The main things here are that he worked as a television host and was an unsuccessful election candidate -- but unsuccessful election candidates do not pass WP:NPOL, and the hosting stuff is half unverifiable (I can find zero media coverage indicating that Project X ever actually aired at all — which doesn't necessarily mean it didn't, but does mean that even if it did it still isn't notable) and half definitely-false (he did host one individual documentary that aired as a standalone episode of The Nature of Things, but was never the primary host of the actual series as this claimed he was until I poleaxed it as lies.) Literally none of this is "inherently" notable at all, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for political office are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's got a number of potential "hooks" but I don't see anything presumptive or anything which passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 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. Notability asserted (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Marie Marcelin Gilibert[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. » Shadowowl | talk 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. We would need a few scholarly works on the Colombian police to show that his role in their formation has been recognized as significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could possibly be redirected to History of the Colombian National Police~~ - that article is currently unsourced, but there are newspaper articles on the history of Colombia's police force [30], [31], [32], academic papers [33] and a pamphlet written by a university professor and published by the Banco de la República, which is effectively the keeper of the national historical archives [34]. The question is whether any of these sources really provide any in-depth biographical detail about Gilibert, and if he is really just known for this WP:ONEEVENT. Richard3120 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources located by Richard3120 need to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the sources in order (nb., this is based on the machine translation)
- First El Tiempo article: Two paras of coverage about Gilibert, borderline for notability.
- Second El Tiempo article: Three paras with lots of biographical info, definite significant coverage.
- El Heraldo - passing mention, not SIGCOV.
- Academic paper - I don't have access to this and cannot assess it. Based on its subject matter (the establishing of the Colombian National Police) it seems likely that it would cover Gilibert's role in some depth though.
- The Banco national article - I am having trouble assessing whether this is or is not a blog. The listing as "Credential No. 23" for the article suggests it may be part of some kind of publication. In terms of content it is clearly significant coverage.
Based on the above I lean Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST FOARP (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - These sources found using the name "Marcelino Gilibert" should also be considered. It seems Gilibert was known by the Spanish version of his name, which may have complicated the BEFORE work for other searchers: 1 2 3 4. I'd say that WP:BASIC is met.FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - "Credential Historia" is the name of a Colombian magazine, the full name of which is "La revista credential historia", and which is nowadays known as "Revista Credential", so the Banco National article is from what appears to be an RS for Colombian history. As well as founding the Colombian National Police, Gilibert also appears to have played a role in the riots in Bogota in 1893 and uncovered a number of coup plots, so WP:ONEVENT does not apply. I've done my best to re-write the article and I hope it is satisfactory. PS - it is only when you consider that Colombia actually had a civil war in 1895 and this is not even mentioned on the timeline of Colombian history on Wiki, nor is there an article about it, that you realise how much stuff there is left to write about here. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: thank you FOARP, I think there's definitely enough here now to keep the article, passing WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Gold[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and practically all sourcing can be merged with 2018_double-spend_attacks_on_Equihash-based_cryptocurrencies. I cleaned up a significant portion of the article as well as added reliable sources, however I seriously question if it's even close to WP:GNG. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically Bitcoin Gold had a market capitalization of several billion dollars, and it is one of the major forks of Bitcoin. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those things are enough to keep it. See WP:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV which had a "market capitalization" over $2 billion at one point. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Coverage when it launched in Fortune, CNBC, and Ars Technica. Coverage of its attack in Fortune and ZDNet. Articles in ZDNetand Business Review Romania about its Bittrex delisting. Џ 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these sources might merit a keep. I'm unsure about the reliability of Buisness Review Romania, simply because I've never heard of it before, but the rest certainly checks out. Dr-Bracket (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balkywrest (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient RS as noted above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal - it's utterly unimportant even in the world of cryptocurrencies, but it's had some RS mention - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; launch publicity does not translate to encyclopedic notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Bitcoin. Vorbee (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In particular, the date of the fork is useful. If the value of it continues to drop though, it will be of less interest in future. HighlyIrregular (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced, as well as bitcoin is a very important thing we must know about today, and any information that we can have on it would be good. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:02, 30 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. General consensus. No prejudice on renomination. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Village[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD; appears to be a run-of-the-mill commercial complex of no historic, architectural, or sociological note. Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article already has reliable sources coverage and is a significant structure in its locale. Most buildings are run of the mill to some extent but if they have received reliable sources coverage they are usually included and this structure is significant enough to be notable and should be kept, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the necessary depth of coverage. The only sources are local newspaper articles discussing routine zoning-type agenda items before the planning commission and city council, which one would expect from any commercial development in Los Angeles County given the way its local government bureaucracy works. I don't see this as sufficient to demonstrate an encyclopedic level of notability. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:18, 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 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a neighborhood in Manhattan Beach, not simply a commercial mall. It was the last empty-space neighborhood to be developed in the city. Go here for articles. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1985 the area got much newspaper space when methane gas was discovered leaking there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:51, 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Paris explosion[edit]

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

The article was swiftly created hours after the incident was reported, possibly due to the tensions in the Paris area, so one might argue that it was reasonable to think that it might have been related to the Yellow Vests movement. But since we now know that it is very likely that the explosion was caused by a gas leak, and since there's nothing about the incident that could cause notable lasting effects, I don't think it deserves article status at this time. lovkal (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - More information may come overtime. Also has plenty sources and could be expanded. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This explosion killed four people & injured many others. It also caused a great deal of damage and disruption. Despite it apparently being an accident, it's likely that health & safety rules, laws, inspections will be improved as a result. Jim Michael (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 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 02:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with other Gas explosion's with their own page and ones from 10 years ago still hold water. A quick search convinced me that we might expect legal and social repercussions from such an event. For me its notability is in the context of terror attack fears, but the page rightly? does not go into that. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Weak Keep I think Jim Michael mentioned some good points here and the lack of quoting any wiki-policy in the nomination is not helping. As new evidence comes to light and new citations are added that builds WP:GNG. The gas explosion was pretty well cover by UK media and I am sure this will create a domino effect towards other issues, outcomes. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important discussion. User:Lucifero4
Keep it is notable enough, and additional information should come up in the future. A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 20:56, 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.

[1] Raymond, Kenneth W. (2010). General, organic, and biological chemistry : an integrated approach (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 186. ISBN 9780470504765. Retrieved 29 January 2019.

[1]