Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 June	23 June >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Walter Warnes[edit]

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

Non-notable medical doctor and medical lecturer. Seems to have published many articles, almost all as part of a team, but never received coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACADEMIC as well as the broader GNG. schetm (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep elected fellowship in the Royal College of Physicians (verifiable here) meets WP:PROF#C3. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states that a "fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." is presumed notable. How selective is the honor of being elected FRCP if you can nominate yourself? schetm (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't seem to say you can nominate yourself. It does say you can declare your interest in becoming a fellow if you're already a member of the RCP. Even then though you have to be approved by the RCP council. The fellowship itself appears to be considered pretty prestigious. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that FRCP is a criteria that easily meets NPROF#C3. Noting that IEEE fellows can also be self-nominated and are explicitly mentioned in the policy. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to the IEEE Member Grade Elevation page, "The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred only by invitation of the Board of Directors…." Per the 'WP IEEE' page, Fellow "cannot be applied for directly by the member". At least try. ogenstein (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Citations are not high for medicine and FRCP is not that high an honor (the award page says that only three years of consultancy is expected). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:PROF being elected FRCP, self nomination, if indeed thats the case, is irrelevant (otherwise looking forward to the above editors who believe this is an issue leaving their notability concerns on all the talkpages of every Federal/state politician on wikipedia:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dispute seems somewhat premised on whether FRCP is a sufficiently prestigious position
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Modest google scholar results. No search results outside of academia. None of the 'keep' arguments offer anything except 'FRCP' but this does not constitute a highly prestigious honour. People who claim that it does should read the RCP page which reads as an application for membership in a club requiring annual fees. Also, 'Candidates will need to […] pay an admission fee in order to accept our award of fellowship.' I am surprised to see it compared to the examples mentioned in ACADEMIC. ogenstein (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm reading the full benefits list. Apparently you get a free parking space (well, free as part of your £554 annual membership fee) and a magazine, but it doesn't say anything about getting a wikipedia page. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not all that impressed by the RCP fellowship - the RCP has over 3000 fellows, and this page make it sound as if fellowship election is pretty much a rubber stamp. But his Google Scholar citations are fairly good. I think he meets NACACEMIC - barely. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Royal College of Physicans in 2017 had 17,749 fellows (a majority of its membership). Add to the fact that any consultant with 3 years' seniority is automatically considered for the fellowship, the FRCP doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to justify the retention of the article. Atchom (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, let his membership lapse, which suggests it really isn't that prestigious. See https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2009/11/26/richard-smith-is-expelled-from-the-royal-college-of-physicians/ Atchom (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for RCP and his achievements in medical research Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Where is the significant coverage? Consistency is important and I see a strong reason to !vote "Delete" or the need for an alternative that would be prove it as a sourcing criteria for inclusion for WP:BLP's. I have somewhat agreed to abide by the relaxed principles of sourcing regarding WP:NPROF and WP:ACADEMICS (primary over secondary and not necessarily independent) but FRCP or RCP fellowship alone as a criteria for meeting those is too thin. These !votes that appear to point to I like it should reflect the better option of WP:IGNORE, as two references and arguments the subject is a RCP fellow, or a member of FRCP, does not provide significant coverage to allow more than a career pseudo biographical article on Wikipedia. The subjects notability regarding his "achievements in medical research" cannot be seen as "significant" without coverage. The criteria of sourcing to provide evidence of notability, especially on a BLP, is certainly more stringent "than a simple name mention" (Medical collection listing from the article) or a Google Scholar listing of his research (also from the article). A listing of a subjects research does not pass any criteria that others find the person notable as provided by sources. This becomes "there a list so he or she surely is notable". The present condition of article sourcing is not a determination for deletion but if the sources are so limited that others cannot find them then there is a reasonable expectation they don't exist. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we do provide for WP:HEY circumstances (that include sources) that would allow the also reasonable expectation an article can be expanded. If this article is closed as "Keep" it should be considered it will be on the merit of actual votes (head count) and not the applicable !votes as supported by policies and guidelines that certainly include the more stringent sourcing requirements for BLP's. A source can be acceptable for content yet not provide evidence of notability. Short of the above we possibly need to examine the criteria that of being a RCP fellow or a FRCP, possibly with a RFC, to try to have some consistency on reasoning if the two can replace or be an alternative to notability sourcing. The option of articles on 17,749 "fellows" with scarce to no actual sourcing seems a bit too relaxing and suggests we just forget the sourcing requirements and include everyone. Otr500 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CleanEquity[edit]

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

Promotional page, written like a press release. No evidence of notability in article; sourced only to itself. WP:BEFORE shows no external evidence of notability. Has not improved in nine years, and has no prospects of improvement. Was created and AFDed in 2008 as well. David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Organization does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Orville1974 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 02:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only serves as a means of advertising, no evidence of notability. Can't find any significant coverage by reliable sources to suggest that it warrants an article. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much a WP:PROMOTIONAL page. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A BEFORE spot check (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) by me fails to find WP:SIGCOV not contained in the page. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Highly promotional. Doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in multiple secondary reliable sources. Fails WP:NORG. We should speedy delete it since it was deleted by an afd discussion. Masum Reza^📞 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was highly tempted, except that it's been around for nine years since ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 29 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Bikram Acharya[edit]

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

I previously tried to PROD it. But the page creator removed the prod tag without giving any good reason. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Masum Reza^📞 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unremarkable person, the article doesn't include any reliable sources. Most of the claims made in the article aren't backed up by a source. His book or his songs haven't received any recognition.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none-notable person. Barca (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn’t really meet any of the specific notability guidelines (or GNG for that matter). Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:04, 29 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maniram Rajora[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While there is a dearth of online sourcing, he was the equivalent of mayor in a city of over 100,000. If this was in the U.S., that would normally be more than enough. The fact that there was a major celebration in rememberance of his death over 40 years later would indicate some lasting notability. The lack of sources might be due to him being mayor in the pre-internet era.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archival referencing tools can do much better than this. A population of 100K is still not an instant notability freebie that overrides a dearth of actual sources — even in the US, a mayor who was this poorly sourced would still be deleted if nobody could actually show any new sources that could be added to fulfill the WP:NEXIST criterion. Even for pre-internet people who don't Google well, the notability test still does not just presume that maybe better sources exist: we are allowed to cite offline print sources, but the existence of offline sourcing still has to be shown and not just speculated about. Of the three footnotes here, however, one is a Facebook post, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something else entirely, and the only one that's about him to any non-trivial degree is a mere blurb, and that's not enough. If people could show better sources, then I'd be happy to reconsider this — but that's a matter of showing them, not just guessing at the possibility. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Two new sources have been added since I first commented here — but one of them is just a very brief glancing namecheck of his existence in the context of having had a park named after him, not a source about him, and the other is a mere photograph. So neither of them is making an ounce of difference. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With few online sources, no journal articles or book mentions, the expectation is that there needs to be off line sources cited in the article to meet our community's standard for sourcing articles. Until that work is done, this article should be deleted. --Enos733 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masum Reza^📞 21:58, 29 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gangaram Nirvan[edit]

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

Nothing apart from this obituary. Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 02:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No publication avaialbe, but story is true. Indian Parliament is most important place for indians and you know Gangaram Nirvan is the person who forced indian government to establish Dr. Ambedkar's statue in Indian Parliament. this is notable thing that time. but no one published this story. Sunilbutolia (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia[reply]

Delete you need sources to establish notability. Even with sources getting a statue erected is generally not enough to pass notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they lobbied for the creation of a statue. Literally nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the referencing is a mix of unreliable sources (Blogspot, etc.) and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him, so none of the sources get him over WP:GNG either. If "no one published this story", that in and of itself is precisely why it is not our job to publish this story either: our job is not to help you create the web presence of a person who didn't get any media coverage, it's to keep articles about people who got media coverage and not keep articles about people who didn't. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 29 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Richards[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local-market television journalist, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing -- but the only references here are her staff profile on the self-published website of her own station and a press release from the larger company that owns it, not independent coverage of her in unaffiliated sources, and the article says nothing about her (e.g. winning a major national journalism award) that would make her "inherently" notable enough to get exempted from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:MILL local TV presenter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:57, 28 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open loop[edit]

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

Unsourced stub since 2011. There doesn't seem to be a real topic here, maybe a definition at best, but WP is not a dictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this better known by a classical Greek or Latin name, like so many other terms in rhetoric? If so, it would be useful to search for the older name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move it to Tension loop: As I said during an RM discussion a year ago, I looked for sources that discuss this rhetorical device and was basically unable to find any mention of it by the name "open loop" (although the term makes sense). I did find some sources that called it a "tension loop". The editor who commented above added two sources to the article about an hour ago, but I reverted the addition. One of those sources cited Wikipedia as its source and the other one quoted Wikipedia's definition of the term word-for-word (and both were written after the Wikipedia article was). I somewhat wonder whether the term "open loop" even existed with this meaning before August 2011 when the definition was put onto Wikipedia without citing a source. The article contains nothing but a brief definition of the alleged term. Such a rhetorical device certainly does exist and is frequently used, but this is not the primary name for it and we would need more than a definition to justify having an article about it. Perhaps there is a third term for it that we have not yet identified, and there might even be an article about that already. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- My research indicates that there is no real topic here. There are concepts called "open loop" in programming and in engineering, but this just isn't a thing. Reyk _YO! 10:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D&D Media Group[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2006. I can’t find any reliable sources now. Previously passed AfD in 2007 and 2015. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the additional sourcing found (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent LaMarca[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing "no sources in any form". However, it does not meet the requirement of "All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Snowycats (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have found a proper source and added it to the article. That said, I have no opinion yet about whether the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added three additional sources and more content. It's still a thin article, but has potential. Orville1974 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major Hollywood film based on his life was made, called City by the Sea and starring Robert DeNiro. That movie was based on a lengthy article about LaMarca that appeared in Esquire magazine in 1997. When the movie was released, many newspapers wrote about LaMarca, and not just passing mentions. Coverage in the Los Angeles Times runs for 29 paragraphs and LaMarca, not the movie, is the main focus of that article. There was also a lengthy article in the New York Daily News not currently used as a reference. Yes, the article is thin but the potential for expansion is obvious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't fault the nominating editor for nominating this, based on the condition of the article at the time of the nomination, but a couple edits made since then have pretty clearly established notability. TJRC (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A.Jacobin (talk) 14:53, 27 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jipping[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing "no sources in any form". However, it does not meet the requirement of "All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've added a decent source. I feel this needs a review under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1, and I also think he may pass criterion 7. I might disagree with his views, but I believe his various actions and roles make him notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any basis for notability here. I don't see the applicability of WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 ("The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"). I see he's been published a lot, and appeared as a guest on TV shows as a commentator (which is not itself a basis for notability), but no indication that his publications or guest appearances have made a 'significant impact". TJRC (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as the subject doesn't have significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation record does not make the case for WP:PROF#C1 notability, and the sources available do not make the case for #C7 or GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Season[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but not multiple that are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of them. Non reliable blogs, marketing platforms, primary, press release, routine announcements. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 22 June 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 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northey Brothers[edit]

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

The “Northey Brothers” are the subject of a single story from an 1891 volume of ghost stories. This story purports to have been told to the author by an anonymous source (hence the author admits the name “Northey” is fictional). I can find no evidence in any secondary source asserting why this particular story is notable. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is nothing but a brief synopsis of a single story from a book. There is absolutely no assertion in the article as to why this particular anecdote has any notability whatsoever, and there do not appear to be any additional sources that would provide notability. Its a rather implausible search term, so a redirect to the author's article would not make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised to see this at AfD as I put it up for PROD a couple of hours previously, but whatever the reason for that was, definitely delete as non notable and lacking secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)
Delete for the reasons given above. But it looks like a deletion nom bot today already republished it word for word here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Northey_Brothers. Don't know if that's going to be permanent, but the bot from Deletionpedia may also eventually publish it. No win situation, bots are slowly assuming control. 5Q5|^✉ 16:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gosh darn it, I love good ghostie stories, but each mention does not get a Wikipedia page. Sorry. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is just a few lines , not an article, an essay, . . . Alex-h (talk) 16:43, 24 June 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) MrClog (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehad Hamad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing "no sources in any form". However, it does not meet the requirement of "All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Dead external link. Snowycats (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, no citation exist in article and also the artist is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources have been added to the article such as from The National newspaper, reference 3 is the best, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added citations satisfy basic notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BASIC and WP:NMUSIC seem satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 18:03, 29 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster (Jérémy Amelin album)[edit]

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

Non notable unreleased album. Lacks coverage in Independent reliable sources. Stuffed full of primary sources but nothing about it from others. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m having a hard time seeing independent coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not cite or discuss reliable sources establishing notability. Sandstein 12:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. Jeffrey Brown[edit]

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

DeProd on the basis that he is known for a recent court decision. However, that is not sufficient for notability per WP:BLP1E. Other than that, seems to be a run-of-the-mill businessman, with the brief, shallow, local coverage you would expect from that. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article certainly needs expansion (sorry I've been dealing with student finals!) the subject is known and notable for more than just the Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street court decision. Subject is the founder of the first journalism public benefit coop in the USA, has notability for AP v AHN. Most importantly, media and journalism industry leaders hold special notability for democracy transparency purposes. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To support a Wikipedia biography written in the correct way, there has to be people who have actually researched and published documentation of this person's life and works. The fact that the article at hand sources all other information about the subject, apart from court cases and an appointment, to the subject's own autobiography on LinkedIn and Twitter, is telling. Searching, I find no independent sources documenting this person's life and work in depth, merely lots of other autobiographies. It is not possible to write a Wikipedia biography of this person in compliance with Wikipedia's content policies. The Primary Notability Criterion is not satisfied, for lack of multiple, or indeed any, independent in-depth good sources. Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Confusing article, reads like a resume with little indication of his notability. There is no coverage from credible sources, and the references are simply routine coverage and PR release of respective institutions plus some social media profiles. Viztor (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that an Organization v. Organization case do not automatically grant persons of respective organizations notability. Viztor (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 22 June 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. With respect to the keep vs. delete argument, there is only one detailed keep argument and most of the delete argument appears to be for redundancy reasons. With respect to the merge argument (which owing to the delete arguments has particular importance), it seems like some people consider it a poorly written spinoff article whose notability as a list would be questionable and others feel like it can be turned into a good list and that the main YouTube article is too long for a merge. I don't think any of the arguments here is notably more compelling than the others in terms of policy/guideline or headcount, so no consensus. A dedicated merger discussion may be well advised, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube suspensions[edit]

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

Not sure why we need an article on this. This (at best) could be a redirect to the main YouTube page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am guessing it's spurred on by coverage like this. I see that this could turn into a list of incidents noted by reliable sources (e.g. Reuters 2007 Variety 2018) which would suggest more lasting notability than any given situation on its own would merit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a WP:POINTy article with no real point; zero cites, and states the obvious, that a private website can suspend users at any time for any reason. Poor copy of Twitter suspensions with no examples at all. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Barkeep49. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing but the Twitter article boilerplate has been added to this article. There's nothing to keep right now. I highly suggest a relist on this (and I don't forsee the article creator adding anything to this). Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and started the table with the items Barkeep49 mentioned and the other top search result on "youtube suspensions". Maybe other editors will improve this article. I'm ambivalent on whether it serves an encyclopedic purpose; all three entries have their own articles which cover their YouTube issues. Schazjmd (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but feel it will end up as a fork, for all those "personalities" who are not notable enough for their own page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I didn't know of the existence of Twitter suspensions when I made my !vote but would think it would evolve in that direction. And as one of the foremost skeptics of certain claims of YouTube personalities (e.g. subscribers and views) I am OK with that and with having lists of non-notable people. Much better a list than an article imo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable it does not get an article, we do not need a list to appease egos in the hope they just are happy to be mnetioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the it? People can be not notable but be a part of a notable grouping (list). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because lists should not be a get around notability. That (in effect) is creating a fork.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from my lengthy searches today, it doesn't look like there's any coverage of a YouTube suspension unless the suspended account is already generally notable (or notorious). I haven't found any coverage of an account being suspended that didn't already have an article. If there's no independent coverage to provide as a reference, a suspension shouldn't be added to the article. I didn't add any brief-mention coverage, such as "popular channels X, Y, and Z were suspended" in "YouTube pulled monetization for anti-vax" articles. Schazjmd (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our description of notability for lists suggests that in some cases non-notable entries can be appropriate. I am suggesting this is one such circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into YouTube, doesn't seem appropriate for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the YouTube article. This seems like one of those articles you'd find in an excessively detailed fan-made project. Does not belong on Wikipedia, but may have some sort of usefulness on the YouTube page. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glad to see a similar structure to the page I created Twitter suspensions Deku-shrub (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as notable as Twitter suspensions, which was also put up for afd and kept. The article has been expanded greatly and now have relevant sources from reputable outlets such as BBC and Reuters. Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - probably not enough for its own article, but can be improved; content should be kept at Youtube if it doesn't warrant its own page --DannyS712 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I advise against a merger with YouTube due to WP:SIZE concerns with the article being significantly over the recommended 100k maximum readable prose. An alternative target to where a merger could be more appropriate to Censorship of YouTube, but my ideal outcome would still be a keep. Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Censorship of YouTube. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:21, 27 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Girl[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I shall describe first the cited sources, and then what I found when I tried to find better sources.

The online references are very brief mentions, for that reason alone of no value for establishing notability, and they are also on niche web sites that don't seem to be significant sources. Here are descriptions of those sources:

http://www.atarihq.com/jeo/jeo_0204.htm is a very amateurish-looking magazine page, which amongst other things includes an interview with someone unrelated to Battle Girl. In one of the questions the interviewer asks the interviewee if he has ever played Battle Girl. The interviewee gives a brief answer, in which he says that he has "heard of" the game, and thinks "the screen shots looked cool".
http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=379 is a forum-like list of readers' questions and answers to them. One three-sentence question is about Battle Girl, and there is a two-sentence answer to it. Essentially what it amounts to is Question: "Is there going to be a version of Battle Girl to run on OS X?" Answer: "No."
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=3150 is a few sentences announcing announcement of release of two games, one of them Battle Girl, together with a couple of short quotes from the promotional material of the company producing those games.

The one other reference is a review in a magazine called "Next Generation". Unfortunately it does not appear to be available online (not surprisingly for a magazine that has been defunct for 17 years) nor can I find any other source anywhere that verifies that the quote given as coming from that magazine did appear in it. However, whatever it says, one review in a not particularly prominent magazine does not go very far towards establishing notability.

When I searched for sources I found download sites, software listing sites, a mention in a gaming forum, an amateur site which appears to provide nothing except screenshots of games (certainly that is all it provides for Battle Girl), this Wikipedia article, and so on. I didn't manage to find anything at all better than the cited sources.

Conclusion:There is no evidence that there is "significant coverage" in "multiple sources" (both quotes from Wikipedia:Notability). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Next Generation (magazine) is considered a reliable source by WP:VG. Its MobyGames page indicates there are five more reviews which are not cited in the article yet, including ones in Mac Addict and Macworld, both of which I believe are also considered reliable by the wikiproject. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing can be found in online searches about this one, and the nominator's assesment of the current sources is spot on. However, there seems to be some print reviews of the game that are more than a passing mention in reliable sources like Next Generation (magazine) [1], MacWorld [2] and MacAddict [3]. Checking the Moby reviews, Hot Games seems to be a straight unreliable, and there are "MacLedge" and "MacHome" reviews offered at [4] and [5] with unknown notability. I can sort of sympathize with the nominator considering almost all coverage comes from very specific platform oriented websites or magazines (and the game also released on Windows, so it's not exactly a Mac exclusive which would give it some significance). Leaning to Keep for now by barely meeting WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging JamesBWatson for a response on the new sources (mainly the first 3 I mentioned). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above; appears to meet WP:GNG. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lopez (RØB)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable subject Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the refs support notability. suggest creation of World's greatest woah-hitters. Hydromania (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flor Muñoz Rivas[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Per the latter, I'm no expert in this field, but her citations seem rather sparse.[6] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found more favorable GS results searching for Flor Munoz than I did for Flor Munoz Rivas. The article isn't very encyclopedic right now, but I think her citation counts get her over the bar for WP:PROF. I know that clinical medicine has high citation counts, but even just looking at papers where she is the first author, I see 284, 280, 194, 128, 98... Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am not sure where medical publishing ties in with WP:PROF? I have been looking for material and sources that might provide evidence of notability to create more than a pseudo biography. The subject is a pediatrician of infectious diseases, certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), and is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP) so does have a leg up on some of the 28,374 other pediatricians in the United States. She is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) "Section of Infectious Disease" {SOID} member. As a committee member of the AAP she does publish papers but I am looking for something to qualify for WP:NAUTHOR. I will look at this more later. Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal citation counts are the primary way that academics (physician or not) meet WP:PROF#C1. FAAP just indicates a member of the AAP who is board certified, so that’s really not relevant to our notability standards. Some academics or physicians meet WP:AUTHOR, but WP:PROF is more typical. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this was just stuff I found. The connection to the AAP is that she has published works (through SOID) as a specialist in her field. I added some links to the references but So far there is a lack of evidence to provide a significant impact in their scholarly discipline to "get her over the bar for WP:PROF#C1 or C2". The different uses of her name, per the title, as Flor Munoz, and FM Muñoz should be covered. Otr500 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Physician with a few published articles. Fails WP:PROF, fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 26 June 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. Based on my reading of this discussion, the key arguments in favour of deletion are that a) she is not notable b) the article is a BLP violation and c) BLP1E. Regarding the first point, most of the delete arguments are just assertions and Saff V. and Mhhossein's sources have been largely uncontested except for Icewhiz's point which reads like a partial rebuttal. For the BLP vio claim, it's largely vague and it's not clear that it couldn't be resolved through editing rather than deletion. Finally, regarding the BLP1E point, it's again Mhhossein's and Icewhiz's points which are the most detailed, but it's not entirely clear whether one side is clearly more compelling than the other. Perhaps this leans more to a keep than a delete, but I'll play it safe and deem this a "no consensus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somayeh Mohammadi[edit]

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

Apparently the basis for a non-notable film, but that's not enough reason for an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to People's Mujahedin of Iran. Most of the detail here is excessive but the PMoI article has sections on Albania and on its cult characteristics which would be a good place for a couple of sentences about Somayeh Mohammadi as a case study. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the People's Mujahedin of Iran is too long and needed to be shorten!Saff V. (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. It's notable completely and if you search about the person, you will find many reliable sources that paid to subject. But the Article need to fix its problem. My friend, DGG, it's not about a film. Article paid to a person who captured by MKO and only in the introduction section one paragraph speaks about the film. And also, merging the Article with main Article will waste the subject. The main article, People's Mujahedin of Iran, is not a subtitle place for fully coverage this title.Forest90 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such RSes like spiegel, independent and theguardian support the topic and prove the notability. Most of the article is about Somaye and her parents. Why do you think article is created base on that film while just one sentence is about the film in the article!Saff V. (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BLP violation and not a notable topic. Alex-h (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None-notable person. Barca (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Person is irrelevant. It's borderline like making a article of the average person. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the connection between irrelevant and wp:Notability. Do you talk about specific policy?Saff V. (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough as far as I can see. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many problems with this WP:Advocacy article, but mainly fails WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Historyofiran. Subject is notable for what exactly? Nothing she has done, and no event surrounding her joining the MEK, meets any sort of notability criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DGG. Poorly written article that also fails WP:PERSON. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are lots of RSes supported the notability of Somayeh Mohammadi:

The opinion of Somayeh about her parent's effort to meet her was reported by thenational

How did she join MEK and her parent's effort to meet her and her letter accusing her father of being an Iranian intelligence agent was reported by guardian

Somayeh has published her whole story in a book available in Persian and English which reported by tirana times

Stories have emerged of how MEK paid many media outlets in the country in order to buy their silence regarding the abduction of Somayeh Mohammadi which reported by Fars news

Brief and complete description about Somayeh specifically her parent's effort to meet her is presented by Spiegel

her parent's efforts to find her in Albania was reported by independent

She stated her opinion about the documentary film “An Unfinished Film For My Daughter.”(about her life narrated by her father). Also At the time, Mohammadi provided her response by writing a book, “The End Of A Conspiracy.” Which was reported by thebaghdadpost

Websites backed by MEK published articles about her, mek-iran and mojahedin... In the article, The National’s Gregg Russell interviewed MEK member Somayeh Mohammadi, The latest effort of Mostafa and Mahboubeh, Somayeh’s parents, is to come to Albania and file complaints against the MEK, Somayeh Mohammadi MEK member now living in Albania

Also, there are sources in Albanian such as TPZ, lexo and balkanweb about her and her parent's effort to meet Somayeh

A documentary film, “An Unfinished Film for My Daughter, Somayeh”, narrated the life story of Somayeh and her family.

All in All, it is better to mention some Iranian reliable news agency: The release of Somayeh Mohammadi from MEK's camp/Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, the Uncertain situation of Somayeh Mohammadi/Tasnim, Somayeh Mohammadi left the MEK/Fars news. Saff V. (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are film(s) and newspaper articles on her. Thus, notable enough to have an article.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:BLP1E, GNG. Ignoring unreliable sources for a BLP, what we have in terms of reliable coverage is a few media reports (of the spat between our subject and her father and mother who are trying to get her out of the camp) - from November 2018 through February 2019. This frames this individual within this single event. Should there be continuing and persisting coverage there may be cause to reconsider but not at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somayeh Mohammadi dismisses the allegations made in this article (which are in of itself not notable) as false: [7]. Alex-h (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per GNG. The article is on a girl whose membership in MEK brought her some challenges and controversies, since he had parents wanting her back home. She was approached by some journalists on multiple occasions and had been the subject of multiple works in reliable sources so the details of her life story were covered by various reliable sources such The Guardian, Independent, Spiegel and some others (there are some sources mentioned by other users here and I'm not going to name them one by one). That said, WP:BLP1E does not apply here since, now, there's no single event making here notable. She's already a member so there's an ongoing story probably making her subject of more works in future. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zumbly[edit]

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

Inadequate references for notability. The Maxim article is a laudatory publicity write up of the founder; the Forbes article is a general one mainly devoted to other firms with one paragraph on this one. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable software. This article is likely undisclosed paid advertising, which I have blocked the creator for. MER-C 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagmati English Boarding School[edit]

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find evidence of a school by this name in Sukedhara Kathmandu, albeit not evidence that is detailed, independent, in-depth and reliable enough for me to be able to write anything in Wikipedia about it (It is in several telephone directories, for example.); but no evidence of one in Banepa 30km away. Note that Bagmati College is not Bagmati School, and a WWW site that conflates the twain (by giving the claimed founding date for the one as the founding date for the other, for example) is clearly not checking its facts. Also note the statement about the telephone number (which I cannot verify either) written in the first person on the article's talk page. All of the content in this article is unverifiable, and I am unable to amass enough for a good stub. Uncle G (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Non-notable school. Not enough coverage to distinguish it from other educational institutions of the same name, let alone write an encyclopedia entry with. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:12, 22 June 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 with no prejudice against people without conflicts of interest writing encyclopaedically in the future. I observed that the creator's response carefully avoided explicitly stating that xe does not have a conflict of interest. this. this, and this were fairly blatant advertising of services sold by the business. Looking back at the "years old" account, I found that it was inserting adverts (example) years ago, too. I have deleted this as advertising from an account that has done nothing but advertising (including in the now-deleted AFC submissions) for 9 years, removed the still present 6-year-old advertising from ski simulator, and revoked the account's editing privileges to boot. This is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communicate School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE - all references are from the TEFL industry - no on-specialist media coverage, possible WP:COI - creating editor has not contributed articles about other, larger language school. Davidelit (Talk) 04:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseWP:NOTE - This school is not in the TEFL industry and none of the references are related to TEFL. Please re-check. This is an English school for foreign students and has nothing to do with teacher training. Regarding the COI, I have not made many other edits but my account is many years old. This school has a perfectly good reason to be included in Wikipedia as it is well established and serves students from over 30 countries, who wish to complete their English language training in Manchester, UK. Chunghop (Talk) 10:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 22 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 03:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney bus route L90[edit]

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

A superseded bus route, no longer seems relevant. Much of the content is about related itemssuch as bus fleets, scenery etc which is covered elsewhere. Teraplane (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Route L90 is not superseded, it still operates off-peak on weekdays and all weekends. It is still the longest service operated by State Transit, and hence it is notable. Content may be varied rather than deletion of the article. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake. Realise now it is the 190 that is discontinued. Is there any quick way for me to withdraw this AfD? Teraplane (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is how you can withdraw the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal) Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 03:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for User:WWGB, in the Palm Beach page under transport can the reference to 190 be removed? I noticed you reverted this edit. But is seems only L90 services Palm Beach now? Teraplane (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my error, see above. Route is current, page should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaceyUF (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chessmetrics[edit]

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

There's zero in-depth reliable coverage. All sources are primary or give a passing mention only. LaceyUF (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chessmetrics is referred to by the NYT as "widely respected" [8]; it also features frequently at chessbase.com (though contributions there seem to be written by the creator of the system and could very well not be acceptable for establishing notability under the criteria); it is also sometimes mentioned at The Week in Chess, which seems to be independent. However, what seals the deal here is the presence of WP:RS which discuss the system; maybe they do not describe it to excruciating detail, but being referred to in 3 WP:RS ~~(including at least one which deals exclusively with it)~~ which provide commentary about the article topic seems enough evidence for me to conclude that the topic passes GNG, even if it seems to be highly specific to a certain field. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which source you believe deals exclusively with the topic in an indepth manner? I've reviewed the sources in the article as well as the NYT article, and none are focused on the topic itself. All of them mention Chess metrics in a single sentence passing manner. (I'm discounting all articles written by the system's creator, as those are primary sources.) -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the link the criticism by GM Nunn (see article) was about Chessmetrics; on looking at it seems that it isn't even mentioned directly so I have gone ahead and added a {{Failed verification}} template because of the statement that "First, Nunn discusses various methods for trying to make assessments of the relative strengths of the players." - you could reasonably construe that it would include Chessmetrics, but we'd need to take a look at the book to be sure, and WP:AGF means I don't see why it should be removed if there is at least indirect evidence it is discussed. In any case, the way it is described in the NYT and the fact it is discussed and criticised (if even summarily) in papers still seem like enough weight to conclude that the topic is notable, per WP:NRV which states "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, [...] Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications [i.e. the 2 papers], credible and authoritative books [i.e. Nunn is an authoritative source on chess], reputable media sources [NYT], and other reliable sources generally. [emphasis mine]" A direct quote from one of the (independent) papers cited in the article describes Chessmetrics as "the most complete and resounding attempt [to compare chess players]" and declares that the author (Sonas) "has become a leading authority in the field of statistical analysis in chess" - which might or might not be sufficient to meet criteria that the author is a subject matter expert as given by WP:SPS (though the author's publication are probably not acceptable for WP:N purposes in any case, even if they could be acceptable sources for article content). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahasamund Division[edit]

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

Page created in 2014, about a "proposed" revenue division. WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. No references. Eman 235/talk 01:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find anything to indicate the division was ever established, and only this article and mirrors of it to indicate that it was ever proposed. There may be sources in other languages but for an official administrative division on this scale in India I would expect English sources to exist.Mccapra (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mahasamund references this article in the lead paragraph, with no source. It was originally added in this edit, I think, by a different editor from the one who created Mahasamund Division. Eman 235/talk 21:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 26 June 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 New Brunswick, New Jersey. The sole keep arguments here don't quite work - all arguments on Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey#Requested move 22 May 2017 are about the page title. As for CSC/SAL it's pointed out in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria "Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)" and it seems like most people here don't see a reason to keep a separate list - plus that guideline is more about inclusion criteria in lists than on the question of whether a list should exist in the first place. The WP:NLIST point has not been rebutted either. I am going by a redirect here as there seems to be some disagreement on whether some content could be kept in the target article, thus leaving the option open to copy content over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey[edit]

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

A list of mostly non-notable buildings. Even those with links are mostly redirects to other pages. As per WP:LISTN, even if the members are not notable, the list may be notable if discussed as a group by independent reliable sources, this is not the case here. Also, these building are not very tall. The tallest is 299ft which according to our article on Skyscrapers is far short of the 492ft that would result in that classification. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Tallest buildings in city" requires some form of independent coverage, otherwise it appears to be, prima facie, trivia. "Tallest buildings (all under 100 m) in (city with less than 60000 inhabitants)" is, without a shadow of a doubt, and the likelihood that there are sources discussing such a group seems unlikely, the only I could find is this, and it is not "discussing the group" but rather appears to be merely some form of database (edit: and WP:UGC at it, per below, so not even an adequate source), which falls under WP:NOTDIR, thus fails to meet WP:LISTN. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, that website (emporis.com) is WP:UGC and shouldn't be used at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Brunswick page per discussion with regards to Fort Lee if felt needed/desired, but do not keep as an independent article per above. Especially if Emporis.com turns out to be WP:UGC (I just thought it was inappropriate since it was an indiscriminate collection of information.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus to keep this article was established at Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey#Requested move 22 May 2017. Additionally perWikipedia:Stand-alone lists-Wikipedia:CSC states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria:, specifically, which this list clearly satifies:
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Also, the article on skyscrapers mentioned in the nomination is not of importance here as that has nothing to do with it. Djflem (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does a requested move have to do with consensus to keep (hint: nothing)? Also, WP:INTERESTING/WP:USEFUL are non-arguments (I could very easily make the opposite claims), and the criteria of WP:LISTN that "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables" still stands: unless there is a WP:RS discussing (i.e. that word is important, a mere listing of the buildings without commentary is not sufficient) the grouping, then there is no sufficient coverage to warrant an article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: Wikipedia:EDITCONSENSUS Consensus through editing is a core policy and fundamental to Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus doesn't apply in this case - the subject question of the requested move was whether to move to article to a different title; which is a different question than whether to delete it - please look at WP:DELAFD (and pages linked from there) which is the relevant guide for deletion discussions such as this one; it takes precedence per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS since it is project-wide policy. Or in more simple nearly mathematical terms: RM ≠ AfD and AfD >> RM (in this situation). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article's history and the consensus at Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey#Requested move 22 May 2017 is relevant to this discussion since it clearly establishes that a number of editors (more so far than in this discussion) had considered the matter & through their contributions established a consensus to keep it at that time. Shall we ask them?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was not consensus to keep. The question being asked was not whether the article should be deleted, but what name should it have? Completely different question, but even if there had been a previous deletion discussion (which clearly is not the case), consensus can change.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! What absurdity! Clearly there is a consensus to keep an article if editors have a discussion about the name of the page and decide to re-name it. They decided to keep the page named List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey instead of List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, didn't they?Djflem (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like WP:IDHT from above. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree. So shall we asked those who participated in the earlier discussion about a name change if by their edits they indicated that the article is/was one that they believe should be kept? Yes or no?Djflem (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "Duh! What absurdity!" might indicate a need for you to see WP:CIVIL. You have already been told many times that that discussion has no bearing here, and that even if it had, consensus can change. As for asking those who participated there, that might constitute WP:CANVASSING - they are certainly aware of the deletion process (thanks to the notice on the page) and participation is a choice they can make themselves. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion about what has bearing and who is certainly aware of the AfD process. Would seem WP:APPNOTE appropriate notification would be in order, just to be sure, since, of course, consensus can change and the AfD process benefits from participation? Djflem (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe list contains three notable buildings for which there are independent articles and two for which there are redirects where they are discussed: The Vue, New Brunswick Performing Arts Center, Johnson and Johnson Plaza, Skyline Tower and The Yard.Djflem (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single one of these buildings even reaches 300 feet and few are notable. I'd say to merge to List of tallest buildings in New Jersey but none even meet its inclusion requirement! This is quite excessive to list these as tall buildings, this is not necessary for every place with a handful of moderately sized office buildings. The few tallest could be merged to New Brunswick article. Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting a selective merge?Djflem (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate notification as per WP:APPNOTE:

@Mark Schierbecker: @Newimpartial: @Station1: @Tinton5: @No such user: @Amakuru: participants in Talk:List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey#Requested move 22 May 2017 Djflem (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (pinged above). Frankly, the RM participants focused so much on the aspects of titling and disambiguation that no one at the time bothered to look at notability of the article. Now that I looked, I agree with the first poster above that it fails LISTN: it's a list of not-very-tall buildings in a not-very-big city, and no RS coverage of them as a group exists to justify existance of this list. No such user (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains three notable buildings for which there are independent articles and two for which there are redirects where they are discussed: The Vue, New Brunswick Performing Arts Center, Johnson and Johnson Plaza, Skyline Tower and The Yard. There is no requirement for lists of tallest buildings that they be skyscapers or be located in a major city. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists-Wikipedia:CSC outlines the policy. Additionally there is coverage discussing the phenomenon of such a city as New Brunswick being redeveloped with taller buildings mentioned in following:

David Listokin, Dorothea Berkhout, James W. Hughes (2016), New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Decline and Revitalization of Urban America, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 9780813575582{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref> *https://newbrunswicktoday.com/article/high-rise-apartment-building-shops-decorate-new-street-0</ref>
"New Brunswick, NJ Is America's "5th-Most Exciting Small City'. Why?". walkableprinceton.com. January 5, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-21. The height of the new buildings in New Brunswick (up to 23 levels in the newest luxury tower) would clearly be out-of-scale for Princeton, but for a city like New Brunswick, they offer a way to capture value from desirable locations close to university facilities, downtown amenities and a direct rail connection to New York.
"New Brunswick 101: Your Source For Facts About The Hub City". New Brunswick Today. Retrieved 1 November 2015.
"Explainer: How Downtown New Brunswick Has Emerged from Its Doldrums - NJ Spotlight". www.njspotlight.com. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
"New Brunswick redevelopment: Hub City is renewing, reinventing, reinvesting". MY CENTRAL JERSEY.

Djflem (talk) 20:57, 27 June 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.