Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 June 5 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Rights and Reform Alliance[edit]

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

Minor political party with no representation in government does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Coverage in RS appears limited to mere-mentions and listings in election registries, which don't contribute toward notability. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very minor party, only in Cork, no elected representatives. Spleodrach (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can only find passing mentions, no significant coverage. GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 9 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) 00:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Meddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability guideline. Note that this article is declared paid editing, which is relevant as supporting evidence that many of the refs are paid advertorials. I spent a long time examining all of the refs in the article and detailing them below, to save everone else the work. I find none qualify as independant reliable signficant coverage. I also searched for additional sources and found no useful ones. That search may have suffered from the fact that I was unable to determine "Coach Meddy"'s actual name! The fact that his actual name appears in NONE of the twelve refs is further evidence of the cookie-cutter paid advertorial nature of nearly all refs here.

List of sources and analysis collapsed for convenience
  • timeoutdubai.com
    It is not relevant whether the site is Reliable. Meddy receives passing mention in two sentences. Meddy is not even the main subject of either sentence. Worthless for establishing Notability.
  • foxsportsasia.com
    Appears to be Reliable, however Meddy receives a one-sentence passing mention. Worthless for establishing Notability.

I believe every source below is an over-the-top paid advertorial, almost certainly all written by the same author. Nearly all of the sources are websites with tiny "staff", no reputation for anything, and either explicity state that they carry paid advertorials or are rampant with blatant paid advertorials.

  • telegraphstar.com
    Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid advertorials. Their advertize page states: "Advertorial Guest Posting Method : We are publishing your informational / advertorial articles in our website, news articles".
  • newsblaze.com
    Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid stories. Their contact page states: "Done For You Media Exposure Program Outline ... Press Release, Followup interviews, Followup stories and social followup."
  • thriveglobal.com
    Not Reliable. Explicitly carries paid advertorials. Their media partnerships page states: "Custom-branded packaging and placement in our high-impact editorial content."
  • arizonadailyregister.com
    Not Reliable. Author is explicitly a paid-content marketer. At the bottom of the article About the Author states "Shane is a cryptocurrency journalist and an ICO writing consultant at The Written Craft content service." Going to The Written Craft, he states "This is where I offer my blockchain content writing and copywriting services... I’m a certified content marketer."
  • kathmandutribune.com (there is currently an open AFD for this site)
    Not Reliable. Tiny staff and invites article submissions. The about page states the site is run by two people, plus two foreign correspondents. Also the contact page states: "Kathmandu Tribune welcomes submissions of op-eds and articles on any topic for publication in online." I could find no explicit statement whether payment would help get an article onto the website. However I think the "article" answers this for itself.
  • TGDaily.com
    Not Reliable. I can't find explicit advertizing info, but it looks like just about every article in the Health section is a paid ad.
  • oneworldherald.com
    Not Reliable. Same issue as TGDaily. Spotchecking articles turned up rampant blatant avdertorials / product links. I only need to cite one of their "articles" to make the point:
  • newdaylive.com
    Not Reliable. Same issue as TGDaily and oneworldherald. This article tells you where to buy the best buy Marijauna-oil, and this OMG-advertorial tells you what company to call to have a docor come to your home and hydrate you via IV. You know, for people who are too rich too busy to hydrate by... actually drinking beverages. The ad article says the service is available in "29 metropolitan markets in the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain". Sorry Canadians, you'll have to actually drink your beverages by mouth. Swallowing counts as exercise now.
  • kivodaily.com
    The cited article was posted by Dillon Kivo, listed as Editor-In-Chief of kivodaily. Guess what that means? It means Dillon Kivo SELFPUBLISHed the content on his his personal website. However one of the key criteria of Wikipedia guidelines for a source to qualify as Reliable is that it subjects content to responsible editorial review. SELFPUBLISHed content, Not Reliable.
  • freepressjournal.in
    This appears to be the website of an actual paper newspaper in India. I'll invite anyone else to comment on the quality of the source. However the content itself is a blatant advertorial and obviously Not Reliable. I believe almost anyone who has actually read the sources up to this point should be able to recognize that the text of this source has been written by the same over-the-top author.

Alsee (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very good analysis of the sources by Alsee. I had (independently) come to the same conclusion: the citations are advertorials, published in unreliable sources, for the purpose of falsely claiming notability of for the subject. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undeclared paid editor paid to advertise. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 10:42, 11 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. Determining notability in academics is difficult, and this case is no exception. Sandstein 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olakunbi Olasope[edit]

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

Article about a professor that fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. There's just not enough coverage on the subject currently. Lapablo (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the notability guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Olakunbi Olasope as a subject meets Criteria 5: 'The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.' She has been promoted to the level of Professor which is the equivalent of a named chair. She has been Head of Department and has received several awards. Her work has been documented in the media, as the page records. Her academic research on the reception of Classics in west Africa has a disproportionate impact as the field of Classics is dominated by study of the ancient Mediterranean. The subject is notable and the page has been well substantiated relative to comparable pages. Srsval (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep citation metrics are only one way of establishing notability. In classics they are not much used as a way of assessing impact. There are specific guidelines on notability for academics which are relevant here. Srsval sets out the case for the subject's notability in line with these and the page should remain. It's not even an edge case. Claire 75 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a Professor, Olasope clearly meets notability, and this article demonstrates her notability with a range of reliable sources. Eritha (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
  • Keep the sourcing looks fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as the points above, Olasope's work has gained attention in the media – a good indication of the significance of Olasope's work, especially given she isn't primarily a public historian (as I understand it, though I could be wrong). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olasope has a significant position within the discipline and meets notability. Schedekdotes (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have enough evidence of highly cited works or well-reviewed books for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and beyond the lone book review of an edited volume we don't currently have any reliable sources that go into nontrivial detail about the subject. In particular the two copies of the "classics is not dead" source both quote her rather than being sources about her, the "launching the Classical Association" source mentions briefly someone with a different name (Kunbi Olasope) without clear evidence that it is the same person and without enough detail to be usable as a source, and the eTV source only includes her name on a list of panelists. So all we actually have to go on is the word of several commenters here that she plays a significant role in Nigerian academia, and her position as a professor in a major Nigerian university. I don't think either one is enough. Certainly being a professor alone, without other evidence, would not be enough in other countries and I don't see why Nigeria should be different in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to David Eppstein: according to academic notability being a Professor in a university is sufficient to justify an article even if no other notability criteria are met. Kunbi is clearly a shortened version of Olakunbi; here is a source which refers to her interchangeably by both forms of her name: https://www.academia.edu/9339297/William_J._Dominik_Classics_as_a_World_Discipline_Third_Biennial_Constantine_Leventis_Memorial_Lecture_Nigeria_and_the_Classics_26_2010_1-25. The fact that she is quoted and referred to in several news sources itself demonstrates interest in her work amongst the Nigerian media. Eritha (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
  • 'Comment' in response to David Eppstein. In countries where a named chair is uncommon, the rank of professor is sufficient to demonstrate notability. This is the case in Ghana. And also in Nigeria, which of course is where Olasope is classics professor at Ibadan and I meant to type earlier (was thinking about her role in setting up the classical association of Ghana)Claire 75 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citations to her work are minescule. The claim that just holding routine professorial rank confers notability has never been accepted on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: academic notability states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable....5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." As the latter is the case in Nigeria, this is not a 'routine professorial rank' (as for instance in the USA where the title of 'professor' is used for a variety of levels of academic positions) but the highest possible position that can be held in the subject's university, and therefore fulfills WP:NPROF Eritha (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
Why are we even having to debate this? The subject meets the notability guidelines, the tag should be removed Srsval (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has been established that the subject meets academic notability by virtue of her rank. Complaints about the number of sources (which is by no means an absence of sources) don't seem to me to take proper account of how much less online material there is for Africa. Furius (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see what more can be added to the discussion here. Several of us have repeatedly demonstrated that the subject meets WP:NPROF which is sufficient on its own to keep the page. The low Google Scholar citation count is a) not relevant given that she meets one notability criterion already and b) as Furius points out, not reliable as a measure of her disciplinary impact since many African publications, and frankly many publications in Classics from anywhere in the world, will not be available online. Other objections to the relevance of media sources, etc, have been answered above as demonstrating public interest in her work. Eritha (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
  • Keep per Claire 75.Tamsier (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Just "is a professor" doesn't cut it and never has, and her citations are actually bafflingly sparse; under most circumstances I think that would be something of a dealbreaker. However, head of department counts for something (AFAIK actual named chairs are somewhat sparse in many Asian and African universities), as does convening large conferences. She's also got a decent amount of coverage in popular media. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The position of Professor is not equal to distinguished professor here--the places where it is, are the places where there is only 1 professor per subject. I agree citations are of no help in determining notability in classics. Rather, notability as a researcher in classics comes from published books by major academic presses. She has none. And none of the articles listed are a major classics journal. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a Professor Olasope meets the notability guidelines, in addition to the reasonably long list of publications in the article, and media coverage which could be added to the article to secure bio notability. MillerJPower (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which category of WP:Prof do you claim is met? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this, because I think the following could be further settled: 1. Is the rank of "Professor" the equivalent of "Distinguished Professor" where she currently resides? 2. Many people have noted she is often mentioned in popular culture, but these claims are vague. This is an opportunity to clearly show GNG is being met, independent of PROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete citations are not sufficient to show notability, and not all people who reach the rank of full professor should be considered notable. I am actually beganning to doubt that the holding a named chair guideline makes any sense with the recent mass proliferation of named chairs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. There is no evidence that the position held here is out-of the ordinary. If WP:Prof#5 is being gamed it needs to be looked at. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIAS looms large here. In a Nigerian setting the lady is obviously notable. Unfortunately WIkipedia's rules are tailored for and by the colonial masters. The very fact that WP:BIAS is just an essay is eloquent in this respect. 188.216.192.146 (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I second the above comment. Lack of publications in journals/with publishers deemed 'major' by people in the Global North does not necessarily mean that a Nigerian academic's publications are insignificant (ditto lack of citations showing up on Google Scholar in a country and field in which relatively few publications are available online); in this case the subject is clearly notable within Nigeria due to both her position and media interest. The talk page of a single article is also not the place to hold a wider discussion of whether WP:Prof is fit for purpose or not; if the article fulfils the requirements as currently written - which it arguably does, since 'Professor' in this academic's department, which does not have named chairs, is the highest possible academic position and held by relatively few people - it should be kept, and any discussion about whether WP:Prof] needs rewriting be taken to a more suitable location where a wider discussion amongst a larger number of editors is possible. Eritha (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
  • Keep Notable academic whose work has been noted in the media. I wish this pattern of bringing WOC academic articles to AfD would go away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I third the comment from the anonymous contributor above, and share the sentiment from Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In other countries and in other areas we might see notability in first graduate of the University of Whatever or best high jumper in Finland. Is it possible to work out her notability in Nigeria? Victuallers (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to @Victuallers: she holds one of the highest academic positions in the only Classics department in Nigeria? (source: [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eritha (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ref 1 shows that she does not hold the rank of Professor. She is a Senior Lecturer, two ranks below Professor. The academic ranks are: Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the reference. However there is no evidence that the position is non-routine as she was promoted in a tranche along with several others. Is it suggested that they all rate with WP:Prof#5? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This person leads the largest Classics department in the most populous and largest economically country in Africa. She convenes conferences. If she was the leading or first African American with this position at a leading US Uni 100 years ago then I suspect she would have an article. Victuallers (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' in response to various above: in fact, this is the ONLY Classics department in Nigeria, so subject is one of the two highest-ranking classicists in the entire country. The reference to promotion of '20 dons' in article cited above includes some being promoted to Associate Prof as well as to full Prof; the fact that these promotions took place simultaneously does not indicate that this is a 'routine' promotion, in fact the reporting of this event in the media would suggest otherwise Eritha (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Eritha[reply]
Keep Frustratingly, again, in support for Eritha's above comment. The notability of the subject has been clearly established, this discussion is becoming too long and the AfD tag should be removed. This has gone on long enough. Srsval (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are allowed to continue the discussion, of course, but you can't !vote more than once. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that should have been obvious! Srsval (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Why is this article relisted again when it is quite evident that the subject passes our notability guidelines? I totally agree with the IP's assertion. There is clearly a bias here which I find rather worrying.Tamsier (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject completely misses WP:ACADEMIC. She has not an "named chair", but holds an ordinary full professorship, which is not enough to satisfy any of the criteria of ACADEMIC. Citations do not show notability either (which is not the same as saying that they show the subject is not notable). The much touted mentions in the press are in passing and not about this person, hence she also misses WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Unless one of the "keep" !voters can show at least two reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth, this article will be deleted. As for the appeal to BIAS above, there would be abias if we would apply more stringent criteria to this bio because the subject is African/Nigerian or a woman. That is not the case, we apply exactly the same criteria for notability and verifiability here that we would apply to anybody else. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 12 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. Insufficient evidence of notability at this time. Could be recreated in the future if she attracts additional coverage. RL0919 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Issa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Can't find any indication she meets WP:NMUSIC - no evidence of charting, no substantial sources about her located on search. this is the best I found, and it's more about Latin artists on MySpace than it is about her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC is that the musician has released material on a major record label. Sound on Sound Entertainment was an imprint of Universal Music. She released a CD and while there is no indication it charted on the Billboard Hot 100 - research should be done to track other territories. I noticed the CD was released in Asia via a Japanese distributor. Also she has appeared on the front cover of numerous magazines notably Maxim. She appeared in Playboy and then she was the ambassador/face of Hennessy. She has released music with Trina, Fat Joe and Jermaine Dupri who are notable artists in the genre. Link rot is an issue, the article was never expanded during her tenure in music and therefore there could be lost coverage. Doing an online search there are magazine features which can only be accessed via purchase. Indicates more chance to expand the article. While she is not an international superstar with a string of albums - I believe she passes with general notability.Rain the 1 18:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To release music through a platform that later is acquired under the umbrella ownership of the Universal Music Group is not the same as releasing on a major label. There is very little information about Sound on Sound Entertainment--which no longer exists--other than it was a private entrepreneur effort. It does not appear an any reference I can find of significant labels owned by Universal. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This one is a shame; I remember when she was an up-and-comer then fizzled out. The nomination appears to be inspired by the slight notability of her music, for which she got a little notice, though she also got a little notice for her work in advertising and modeling. I have no argument with anyone who thinks this is enough for a Wikipedia article. But alas, my conclusion is that a bunch of short mentions in the press don't quite add up to strong notability for any of her endeavors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one more source, an article in Lowrider magazine [2] (much like the Dub magazine source already in the article [3]). So that seems to be about 3 sort of independent sources (with the Billboard one in the article). But the two car magazine sources are mostly interviews, and the Billboard one has only a couple of sentences - so it doesn't add up to WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There aren't even reviews on Allmusic. She may make record again, with more impact, but for now there doesn't seem to be enough. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:30, 11 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. Minimal discussion after two relists was not enough to produce a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Brinkmann[edit]

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

Unclear notability. The - likely paid-for - article is based on passing mentions, listings, routine profiles in affiliated websites, and 1 promo "article" in a trade magazine (ref #8). The current sourcing is insufficient and a Google search did not reveal any promising additional in-depth sources. GermanJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator) - Forgot to mention 1 source detail in the analysis: the dead Forbes source (ref #3) is the usual Forbes contributor fluff (per Internet Archive), and is not an independent reliable source for any substantial encyclopedic information. GermanJoe (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article needs updating (as does the linked article to Tripsta). He's listed as the current CEO of a company that went out of business in June 2018. He's mentioned in multiple articles between 2008 and 2015 for building the largest e-commerce travel site in Greece (5th largest in Europe) and made the Fortune 40 under 40 list. I would think there's probably a lot more coverage on him and the rapid rise/fall of Tripsta.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orville1974 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify a few points: his company has a separate article. And the notability of his company does not make him notable (and vice versa - see also WP:NOTINHERITED for more details about this principle). Also, mere mentions and listings do not establish notability for a biographical article - only substantial in-depth coverage about himself in non-promotional reliable publications does. Please provide specific examples of such in-depth coverage about his biography if possible. GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 21 May 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) 13:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:21, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Moyeenul Haque[edit]

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

This article was tagged as an A7 by User:FULBERT, and contested by User:Phil Bridger. The subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. His name is only mentioned in passing in the article's two sources. I also found his name mentioned in Indian Navy and the Dhaka Tribune, but nothing close to significant coverage. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes this criterion of WP:NMILITARY: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalent" He is a commodore in the Bangladesh Navy, a rank with a NATO rank code of OF-6, what would be a one-star rank in United States usage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eastmain: Ok, but can you find any additional sources? WP:NMILITARY says that people are presumed to have significant coverage if they meet one of the criteria in that guideline, not that all commodores qualify for a Wikipedia article. After having done a WP:BEFORE, I'm just not finding any significant coverage. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commodores pass WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: According to WP:SOLDIER, "[T]hose who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article". I believe that is the case here, and have yet to see evidence to the contrary. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, we keep articles on anyone who qualifies. Always have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least a search in Bengali would be needed to overcome the presumption of notability. Have you done such a search? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep. He is a notable person from Bangladesh , He is one of the Bangladeshi top rank Commodore.-Nahal (talk) 13:50, 12 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uplift Universe species[edit]

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

Unsourced article that excessively details the particulars of a novel series. Fails WP:GNG since there is no third-party coverage of this in reliable sources. Fails WP:LISTN since the species are not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fails MOS:REALWORLD. I did find Contacting Aliens: An Illustrated Guide to David Brin's Uplift Universe in a BEFORE, which does not add to the notability of this article since it's a companion book by the novels' author. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- poorly sourced, overly detailed fancruft. Reyk YO! 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Article is not supported by sources Alex-h (talk) 15:15, 9 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. No indication of notability for the list as a subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACM-W chapters[edit]

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

Brochure article. Should be merged into ACM-W Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to ACM-W per nom. No need for this to be a standalone article. Marquardtika (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a list of chapters would be appropriate in the main article either. Reywas92Talk 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate list. ACM is one of the premier world-wide computing organizations and ACM-W represents a substantial number of members in a large organization. Merging the list into the main ACM-W page would unnecessarily complicate the page. When reviewing [reasons for deletion], it doesn't meet the criteria for deletion: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
  1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
  2. Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
  3. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
  4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
  5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
  6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
  9. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
  10. Redundant or otherwise useless templates
  11. Categories representing overcategorization
  12. Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
  13. Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
  14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Merging growing lists into the main page would not clarify the information or make it more accessible. Instead, the list needs to be updated to include additional information about this notable organization. We could definitely use more help getting the article completed.Cypherquest (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where is the independent evidence that these chapters are notable in their own right?Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. All chapters appear non-notable therefore the article is not suitable for merging either. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTDIR Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Remember the policy: the notability of a list does not depend on the notability of each item of the list, rather, the set of items must meet the notability requirements. Thus, for this page to remain, we need significant coverage of the set of ACM-W chapters in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, outside of the organization's website and website's belonging to the individual chapters, I cannot find many sources. The few sources I can find [1] [2] speak more to the notability of the ACM-W than of this list. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:21, 5 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. While the point that notability is not inherited is fair, Doncram's keep argument also mentions that there are substantial-looking sources. And that can be a evidence of notability. Since nobody has contested that point, keep it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin)[edit]

St Agnes-by-the-Lake Episcopal Church (Algoma, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL parish church. Page is largely unsourced and contains unencyclopedic content (prevailing legends, etc.). Sections that are sourced are sourced from affiliated sources, failing WP:RS. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic church designed by major architect Richard Upjohn, "high Anglican" style, built in 1891 which is old/historic by U.S./Wisconsin standards. Substantial-looking sources stated at end, though article could be tagged towards encouraging use of in-line citations. Obviously worthy of National Register of Historic Places listing, though many churches choose not to accept listing. --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also by the way a new editor interested in the topic emerged after AFD started, and added interesting historic quotation from 1877:

"THE NEW EPISCOPAL CHURCH - We understand that nearly enough has been subscribed to ensure the erection of the Episcopal church. It is proposed to build of brick, suitable in size and form to the anticipated needs of the community, Gothic in style, with symetrical spire, etc. Plan executed by a prominent New York architect are expected soon. The edifice when completed will be an attractive, convenient, and comfortable house of worship, and an ornament to the village. It is intended to be complete, it ready for occupancy free from debt. The title will vest in the Trustees of the diocese until a church shall be organized, when it will be held by the Wardens and Vestrymen of the church."[1]

References

  1. ^ The Ahnapee Record, The Ahnapee Record (August 30, 1877). "The New Episcopal Church". The Ahnapee Record.
Which the deletion nominator removed asserting COI, unproven. Seems like an interesting, valid contribution to me, and i definitely do not like to see the appearance of potential bullying/edit-warring by a deletion-nominator as if to try to "win" an AFD. See Talk page of the article.--Doncram (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the username “Stagnesalgoma” implied a potentially paid COI, which I put a message on the user’s talk page about. I was trying to maintain the integrity of the article by abstaining from paid COI edits, not trying to “win” an AfD. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 11:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the way i see indication at the Richard Upjohn article that the church was built "1879, burned 1884, replica constructed 1891". Upjohn is hugely important, by the way, and photo of this work is included/featured in wikipedia article about him. This may have been one of his last works. --Doncram (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I frequently vote to delete church articles (much as I might like to keep them all), but this gets over the hurdle for keeping: notable architect; apparently an early local centre for High Church episcopalianism. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Upjohn connection.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Richard Upjohn is very notable, and this is an example of his work. Church itself is historic. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the work of a notable architect it is of historical interest and should be included in my view, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Blumpf (talk) 04:59, 11 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) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answernet[edit]

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

I'm seeing no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 4 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 List of cities by average temperature. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of European cities by temperature[edit]

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

Redundant to List of cities by average temperature. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of cities by average temperature per WP:CFORK. There is still the issue of a lack of a clear inclusion criteria in the target article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. Don't see much point to keeping a redirect, unlikely search term but whatever. Reywas92Talk 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_cities_by_average_temperature#Europe, with Delete as a close second. The list is redundant and needs to go. I suggest redirect because the article has existed for two years. It's possible there are external links pointing at the page. Redirects are cheap, and this is one of the standard reasons to retain a redirect. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. the page is getting around 50-100 pageviews per day. I think this reinforces my stated rationale for making it a redirect. Alsee (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the aforementioned list Seasider91 (talk) 19:06, 5 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew K. Watts[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable source coverage about him. His notability as a musician derives from being a member of a band, not from solo activity, and the sourcing for that consists of a social media post and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself -- and of the five sources for his purported notability as a music marketing professional, four of them are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and the only one that's actually about him is an employment announcement in an industry trade newsletter that doesn't really clinch his notability all by itself if it's actually the best source on offer. Literally none of this, neither in the substance nor in the sourcing, constitutes reasons why he would qualify for his own standalone article as a separate topic from the band. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominator is correct. This article appears to be a resume/CV or an attempted LinkedIn-like entry for his marketing career, insinuating that he's an interesting office worker because he's a former punk musician. Could possibly be redirected to The Starting Line if anyone thinks the guy's name is a likely search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 5 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. The name of the article does not need to be decided by AfD and is left to the typical processes for renaming. RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Mersham (M2709)[edit]

HMS Mersham (M2709) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are many, many ships that ARE notable, this one isn't. According to the page, which is just based on one page, it was completed in 1955 and then transferred to France sometime later that year. As such, it was never really in service, and the fact that the British Navy briefly named it before transferring it isn't notable and barely verifiable. Notability is important.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 04 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ship was in service for 32 years and so has an extensive history. Its transfer and name change is included in the article and is not a reason to delete. If we wanted to change the title of the article then this would be done by a move – I'll move it back and forth to demonstrate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmm, this is a tough one. The ship is of course covered in a number of editions of e.g., Jane's Fighting Ships, since she served in the French Navy for a number of decades. I don't have a copy of Jane's any more, still less one from that time period, but from the snippets visible in Google the description appear to be 1-2 sentences. There is no guide for determining ship notability so I am looking at other guides to see if there is anything that might help here, however based on the WP:NASTRO guide this would be keep, since coverage in Jane's would be the counterpart to being listed in a catalogue of interest to amateurs. If, however, it is decided not to keep the article then it should be merged into the article covering the Ham class of minesweepers. FOARP (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NASTRO is about astronomical objects whose numbers are literally astronomical – 2MASS lists over 300 million. Warships of this size are not so numerous. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to French minesweeper Violette. Notable, but probably best kept under the French name. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we need something a bit more substantial to support notability than a Jane's listing, or is that sufficient by itself? I'm inclined to keep but I'm not sure about this point. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Named warships are usually presumed notable – see WP:SHIPOUTCOMES. The fact that this one was transferred from one navy to another is not especially unusual or any kind of reason to delete. If anything, the transfer makes it more notable because there's more to say and we have the French-language sources to consider as well as the English. Note also that the title French minesweeper Violette was created as a redirect in 2009 and so we already have that covered. Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. KEEP FOARP (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew D. - here is a summary of its career in French. Llammakey (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All warships are notable. Probably should be moved to its French name though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 5 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) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mazier[edit]

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

unelected political candidate. Essentially an eelection advertisement for him DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won — he has to win the seat and thereby hold the office to clear WP:NPOL, and to get an article anytime earlier than October 20 he will have to demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons to get an article regardless of his candidacy. But this offers no such evidence at all: his stint on the board of directors of an organization is referenced to a special interest blog, not to real or notability-supporting media. As usual, he'll get an article on or after election day if he wins — but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have one today. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, because the person and the article subject is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unelected candidates not notable per WP:NPOL. Candidate not notable outside of their candidacy. When they win in October, we can re-visit the topic. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Ballotopedia. Not everyone running for office meets our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To date it would seem the most significant event in this individual's life is being elected the president of a board which did nothing remarkable during his tenure. Imagine a Wikipedia with an article for every president of every board everywhere. Delete. If he wins he gets an article. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:04, 6 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) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coutu[edit]

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

Deprodded, without really addressing the concerns of the prod. Mayor of a small town in Quebec. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being mayor of a town with a population on less than 4,000 is definitely not an WP:NPOL pass. Of the sources used, three are election results, two are local news coverage about him announcing mayoral campaigns, another is local news coverage of his winning an election, one does not even mention Coutu by name, and one is a radio interview. These hardly constitute a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to pass NPOL #1 — and as mayor of a small suburb of Montreal with a population of less than 4K, he would have to have nationalizing coverage, not just three or four hits in Montreal's local media, to pass NPOL #2. Obviously he'll get an article on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election and becomes an MP (I'll be nice and refrain from snarking on the prospects of a Conservative running in Montreal), but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article because it is not notable itself. Being the mayor of a city is not a good reason to create an article according to WP:GNG. Forest90 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins in October we will revisit. Bkissin (talk) 20:47, 4 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) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big East Conference rivalries[edit]

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

Original research. Lack of inline citations makes pretty much the entire thing unverifiable, and none of the references used discuss these rivalries as a collection of conference rivalries. The references used also only appear to be about school-specific rivalries, and only just about certain events (i.e. not within the scope of the premise of this article on the whole). I'm a knowledgeable fan of college sports and I know that the Big East used to have a lot of intense rivalries, but as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, this page is original research. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as is it is very messy, many entries are uncited, and plagued with OR.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For sure original research and honestly not really worth a separate article. I could be wrong but it doesn’t even appear any of these are notable enough to have stand alone articles.--Rockchalk717 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created in 2006 when the old Big East existed which is considered a separate entity from the current Big East.--Rockchalk717 19:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would also support creating individual rivalry articles if any warrant that with sufficient sources. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:41, 7 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal News Network International[edit]

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

This is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was closed as a speedy keep since the nominator was a sock. I've done a WP:BEFORE and can't find any WP:SIGCOV to provide an indication of WP:NCORP. The author appears to have an undisclosed WP:COI and has generated several similar articles with related topics that also fail WP:GNG and are currently up for deletion discussion: Here: [4], here [5], here [6], and here [7]. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand the nom was a sock. But, what about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? If it's a clearly unworthy article, why should a sock nom stop editors from finding ways to delete it anyway? And what kind of rationale is that from @Dthomsen8: - 'This publisher provides the world with news about Nepal. Wikipedia editors can find information and news in English'? Both sentences are perfect candidates for what not to argue. What if the publisher provides the world with everything. Wikipedia only cares what the world has provided the subject with, in terms of coverage. I sure can't find information or news in English on this subject except from primary sources. So, unless Dthomsen8 actually cites sources, it's a delete for me.Usedtobecool TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To clear up any confusion, I believe the above comment is referring to content from the previous AFD nomination. I think we can safely disregard the previous botched nomination by a sock. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any coverage. I understand this was potentially a big thing, but only if someone cared, which is another way of saying if it affected anybody in the world enough for anyone to care. The company is analogous to Alphabet Inc. except in this company's case, nobody noticed. For all the evidence we have, it might as well be a hoax perpetrated by the Annapurna brand of news media. Usedtobecool TALK 22:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete: on one hand I am inclined to presume sources and Notability exist for a company that runs a TV channel, multiple paper-newspapers, and radio. On the other hand my initial source search didn't turn up much. I found this company mentioned on three foreign language versions of Wikipedia, however as is often the case on small-language Wikipedias their article content was inferior to our own. The best I have to add the moment is a story nepalekhabar.com AP1 TV comes into operation in March 2017. The story only makes a passing mention of Annapurna Media Network (apparently also known as Nepal News Network International), confirming that it operates AP1 TV. I may-or-may-not return later to do more research and/or cast a !vote. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Revised to delete, with little changed from my original comment. I'm satisfied that my presumption-of-sourcing was mistaken, being based on assumptions from my home country that clearly aren't accurate in the Nepali media market. I see a significant likelihood that this company could become notable, but that just means the current article is deleted as WP:TOOSOON. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsee:, this would be the case this guideline would have had in mind. Relevant quote: "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." The Nepalekhabar might be an argument on the notability of AP1 television, that caters to millions of audiences, not a parent company controlling it from the background, as is apparent from the way the news is written. The papers and radios it owns may be notable too. But there is no sufficient evidence for notability of this parent company. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Alphabet. Run the Alphabet vs. Google simul and scale it down to the scale of a country like Nepal whose economy is smaller than many businesses. Then, it makes sense why the likes of this corporation might still fail notability guidelines. The Nepali wikipedia article (which should be expected to have more proof of notability than is accessible to English editors) only cites a job listing on a job broker site (anyone can look, it's in English). The creator and sole contributor to that page is up for adminship and so far only has support. Go figure that out. Usedtobecool TALK 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Usedtobecool I definitely hear what you're saying. I'm not arguing for inheritance, and the lack of identified sources is very close to a killer point.I just hesitate here because it strikes me as surprising that there wouldn't be more sourcing in this case. It's not a point I normally cite, but the standard for Keep is whether proper sourcing exists, not whether they're in the article or even whether we've found them. I think I just want to sleep on this first, and (maybe) make another attempt at a pain-in-the-butt source search. Or maybe I'm just hoping for more confidence that a native-speaker had done a solid search. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a corporation of a size and importance that would be expected to be kept in Wikipedia, there should be more sources available as per WP:NEXIST offline if not online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Atlantic306, where did you find size and importance details on this company? Would you mind sharing them? It seems no one else in this discussion could find WP:NEXIST even though we've tried. Orville1974 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306: - any reply to the above? starship.paint (talk)
  • Keep Being one of the old National News network of Nepal which runs annapurna news, Ap HD , Annapurna Patrika and this guys are directly attacking without knowin the criteria of Wikipedia. Owlf 21:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. What we are looking for is significance coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and I’m not seeing it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Does not meet any form of notability. Virtually no coverage at all with such links as there are being search farms or directories. ogenstein (talk) 09:38, 11 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MathOverflow[edit]

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

Notability could not be inherited from parent, in this case Stack Exchange. Lacks sourcing from WP:RS and failure to meet WP:NWEB. Alexa rank: 28,801 Or, redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has 10 different references, none of which are just about the parent. In particular the atlantic article[8] is a detail and extensive look at the MathOverflow site. The Mercuary News article also looks like quite a substantial reference[9].--Salix alba (talk): 20:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination statement seems to imply that a subject cannot be notable if it is related to something else notable, untrue and a completely bogus application of WP:NOTINHERITED. And Alexa Rank is almost completely irrelevant for Wikipedia notability. The article as nominated already contained multiple in-depth sources in published reliable sources (the Atlantic and Mercury News sources) as well as multiple additional sources that are self-published but still reliable by virtue of the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS (blog posts from famous mathematicians). I just added two more peer-reviewed academic papers that are about the subject (they both have it in their titles). Clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Salix alba and David Eppstein. Certainly enough specific and detailed coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple in depth reliable and recognized expert sources pointed out by Salix and David above make for a clear pass of the notability threshold per WP:GNG. I don't see any insurmountable problems with the article content. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough talk from in depth WP:IS, WP:RS cited to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while some Overflows suffer from short spans of life, this one is almost as old as its' parent. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per David Eppstein. This is a dated article, surely even more references are available now. Perhaps someone can look for them and add them? Mhym (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several new references have been added in the last couple of days. See the "Further reading" section of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep The writing needs improvement, but the topic is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 7 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caoimhin Kelleher[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This subject fails WP:FOOTY's notability guidelines. Being named on the bench for a match, even the Champions League final, is not enough to confer notability. – PeeJay 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Winning the Champions League has brought him a fair amount of coverage centred around him, particularly in Ireland where he is being counted as one of the 12 Irishmen to win the Champions League but also in Britain's The Times, who are covering his quick dash to the Toulon tournament [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] He may never have played a professional match but let's be honest if he went into the amateur game or stopped playing tomorrow, there would be continuing interest in the case of a player who won the Champions League and then never played a professional match. This is not the same case as sitting on the bench for a league match in November. 89.243.238.65 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He was on the bench of the Champions League final therefore he got a medal and is considered a winner of this trophy. Seeing as it's the most prestigous trophy in club football, I think that he is notable enough to keep his article in Wiki. — Dudek1337 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing in WP:FOOTY's notability criteria about players who have only ever been on the bench. Besides, the only reason he was on the bench is because UEFA allowed teams to name 12 subs this year, and the only way he would have got on the pitch is if both Alisson and Mignolet were injured or sent off. This is a statistical quirk, nothing more. – PeeJay 20:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I agree the article does not meet WP:NFOOTY, maybe an argument for WP:SPORTSPERSON, but I think it does meet WP:GNG, even if you discount coverage of Toulon from today (the sources IP 89.243 posted above) as all being WP:BLP1E, there are still sources from earlier that I think count as WP:SIGCOV. The WP:THREE are Irish Mirror 2018-11-05, Goal.com 2018-11-14 and Liverpool Echo 2019-03-12. Also I'm finding a ton of routine coverage, quite WP:SUSTAINED for someone so young IMO. Seems to clearly be among the echelon of young superstar players, despite a lack of senior appearance. For example, from 2015, 2016, 2018, 2018 again. Possibly draftify, but I think it's a GNG keep already. – Levivich 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sort of coverage is fairly routine for any young player who makes a move to a big club. I have no doubt that he will someday play a competitive, first-team match for a professional club, at which point he will meet WP:FOOTY's notability guidelines, but if his career were to stop today, would you really consider him notable? – PeeJay 10:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I come at this from a complicated place. One thing I strongly disagree with is the notion that a player will "become" notable when they have a senior professional game appearance (and thus meet NFOOTY). That implies automatic notability to any senior professional player with 1 appearance, and that's basically the crusade I'm fighting against. In other words, NFOOTY without GNG = not notable in my book. As far as routine, yes, call-ups, contract signings, changing teams, etc., is all routine and just about every player gets a write-up in the news surrounding those events. But I think the volume and detail for this player goes beyond what is typical. For example, the story about him singing karaoke with his teammates. That's not the kind of news coverage that every player gets–that demonstrates (to me) a higher-than-average level of interest in this player on behalf of the media. Also, there's a lot of speculation surrounding his contract moves, which is common... for a Liverpool superstar, not just for any player on any team (even in a first-tier fully professional league). To your question: if he quit today would I consider him notable? No... I mean, stepping back, no, I wouldn't give him a stand-alone page. My personal criteria for that would be much, much higher–like having played at least one full season before anyone gets a stand-alone page–but I'm also aware that my person criteria is much tighter than the community consensus here. So I !vote keep based on my interpretation of global consensus when it comes to notability for a footballer... it's a keep not by my personal standards so much as it's a keep by community standards. Plus, as a practical matter, he is young and still playing, so if we draftified it, it'd be moved out of draft space as soon as he took the pitch and got one game appearance, which is highly likely to happen imminently. Not that draftifying would be the worst choice here, but for this particular player (who I think is a bona-fide "star' and not just any player), draftifying seems like an unnecessary step. TLDR: he's not far over the notability line, but he's over the line with WP:THREE separate solid sources over a six-month period. – Levivich 17:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably passes GNG; article needs substantial overhaul though. GiantSnowman 07:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep off a very quick single web search, easily passes WP:GNG, will almost certainly pass WP:NFOOTY soon and if he doesn't is at the point where that will convey additional WP:GNG-type articles. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:48, 7 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 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Torregrossa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and being the director of a department in the Pennsylvania Governor's office doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The page has not been updated since at least 2011 when Torregrossa left the Office of Health Care Reform. GPL93 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. This is a role that could get her into Wikipedia if she could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that guarantees her the right to keep a poorly sourced article just because she exists. The only references here, however, are government-published primary sources, not real media coverage about her work. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to the page. Whether she is notable or not is one thing, but a 2 sentence page has no place on WikipediaMaskedSinger (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ Au contraire, WP:TOOLITTLE q.v. Sam Sailor 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​You are right my learned friend. Size of article isn't an issue but that's if the person is as notable as Justin Bieber or Michael Jordan. Not the case with Ann Torregrossa, so yes she needs a more significant article to establish her notability. As WP:TOOLITTLE say a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. This clearly isn't the case as you yourself agree by you voting to delete!
  • Delete. Not sourced to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, nor presumed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one-sentence-lead-one-sentece-article model permeating this website is getting ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wording of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office -- doesn't explicitly state that one has to be an elected official to meet NPOL. The office she holds - Director of the Office of Health Care Reform - is a technically a state-wide office. Ergo, she is notable under WP:NPOL. That said, the article's quality does not look good right now. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Office of Healthcare reform was not a statewide agency, it’s a division within the Governor’s

Office. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 11 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 List of American supercentenarians#Adelina Domingues. Consensus is that this page needs to go away, but there is a bit of disagreement on whether any content is salvageable. Thus redirecting, so that the page is gone and people can recover content if they think they can save it elsewhere. That would be at editorial discretion, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues[edit]

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

Time for another AfD on this, now that there's a clearer idea of what supercentenarian articles are being kept and deleted. After the AfD there remain 3 sources, 2 of which are obituaries and 1 being the GRG table, so there's not really anything in the way of significant coverage. If deleted, the title should then redirect to List of oldest people by country and anchored to Cape Verde. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But... but... but she ate beans every day! And she refused medication! And she had a son!! That's important!! Seriously: delete this cruft per WP:NOPAGE. --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 4 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) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Applicant[edit]

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

Fails Notability (web). Defunct self published website. I have been unable to find any evidence of Notability. Article creator's edit history shows strong evidence of COI promotion here. Alsee (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article may be eligible for speedy delete as recreation of deleted article: The Applicant (AfD discussion) unanimously consensus to delete and with the following quote from the nomination: "Article has been deleted after CSD and PROD before, therefore now taking to AfD." Alsee (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There is no evidence to be found anywhere that even acknowledge its existence, let alone its significance. Wikipedia is in trouble if this requires a discussion.
    Furthermore, it's yet another article by User:Dansong22 which is an undeclared alias of Arun Budhathoki, created solely to publicise himself, ruthlessly misusing wikipedia in the process. Don't be surprised if a 27.34.xxx.xxx IP or Ozar77 show up cursing and threatening, with or without resorting to blanking this page and/or deleting AfD tag on the article. Usedtobecool TALK 15:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that was disclosed on the talk page of this very article, deleted the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Recreated article that was already removed as a result of the AfD process. Like a few other similar articles currently up for deletion from related authors, this one also fails to meet WP:NCORP. There's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Orville1974 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the prior deleted article. Whilst it is very similar content, and I would normally delete it as a re-creation (by the same article creator, indeed), I am inclined to let the AFD process run. This is for two reasons. First, as someone else has mentioned, it is possibly useful for people to see all of the articles in this group as the discussion runs. Second, the prior discussion was about lack of any sources at all. This was in 2012 and the old article indeed cited almost nothing. Some of the sources to be taken into consideration now did not exist then. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Obviously non-notable now and will never be. It doesn't help that the links describe the site as defunct or generate a 404 error without being archived. The name is so generic that it is impossible to find any related links using google (assuming…). ogenstein (talk) 09:20, 11 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 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election. See also the close of the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Murray Bailey. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Ciancaglini is a candidate in 2019, not 2015. I've corrected the redirect target accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ciancaglini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia in the upcoming 2019 Election. Maybe redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election? I have also nominated the 2015 Republican nominee who similarly doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as well. GPL93 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not yet won, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that he has preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for other reasons. He'll obviously qualify for an article on or after November 5 in the (somewhat unlikely but never say never) event that he actually wins the election, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates don't get their own page. It's well known. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election Good thinking GPL93! Obviously unelected candidate is not notable per WP:NPOL. Better to redirect to the election itself. Bkissin (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2019 Philadelphia mayoral election. I have no concerns with redirecting candidates who do not either pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL to a valid page about the election they are most notable for. --Enos733 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless he wins the mayoral election he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete or Redirect Candidates often do get their own page. See Melissa Murray Bailey. If Bailey is given her own page, why wouldn't Ciancaglini? What is the difference? Lasalleexplorer (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lasalleexplorer:, actually they do not unless they receive an abnormally high amount of coverage, such as Christine O'Donnell or if you want to go the Philadelphia route Sam Katz. I also nominated Bailey's page for deletion at the same time and even then the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is generally one to avoid. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Melissa Murray Bailey is also up for deletion, and isn't on track to survive. And no, candidates don't "often" get their own page: if they don't already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have clinched a Wikipedia article anyway (e.g. Hillary Clinton is not losing her article just because she didn't win the presidency, because she held several other NPOL-passing political roles before running for president), then they need to show an unusual depth and range and volume of coverage, that goes well beyond what other candidates can also show, before the candidacy itself is grounds for an article. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 11 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 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election. RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Murray Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia in the 2015 Election, which she lost in a landslide, and does not have enough significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election? GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that she has preexisting notability that would get her an article for other reasons — even her prior employment background is referenced to mentions of it in the election campaign coverage, not to evidence that she was receiving coverage for that work at the time that she was doing it. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability. Redirect to election itself. Bkissin (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL notability. Redirect to election itself. Djflem (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election as a usual and appropriate outcome when there is a valid page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election. Very little coverage, far too little for a BLP. Given the lopsided party split in Philadelphia, being the Republican nominee is virtually a BLP1E. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:15, 11 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. There's no point keeping this open for 7 days. It almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion A7 (there's no claim of notability), it's copied verbatim from a book (whilst it probably isn't a copyvio due to age, that's not a good idea either) and anything further is a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Cussans[edit]

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

Unnontable person with an article reading like a story. Cenobialis (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, of course, hello again. cygnis insignis 17:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@QuiteUnusual:, meet @Slatersteven:, he would probably point out that what you said is a personal attack. cygnis insignis 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about me, please stop these distractions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article because it is not notable itself and also lack of reliable sources for covering the Article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talk • contribs)
How that could be known by glancing at something is a mystery to me. Please remember to sign your !votes. cygnis insignis 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My number one objection is not that the subject is not notable (he clearly is not), but that the article is not in fact an encyclopedia article. It is an annotated old document masquarading as an encyclopedia article. Some of the typos I fixed almost make me think the old document was scanned, otherwise I find some of them hard to believe. While in theory these problems could be fixed, with the subject so clearly failing the general notability guidelines for people there is just no reason to expend energy in fixing the article. Plus, some contributions are just so egregiously at odds with what an encyclopedia article should be we ought to just remove them for violating the basics of encyclopedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The old document was scanned, you are absolutely correct, this can be verified by looking at the source provided. Had you heard of the biographer before? cygnis insignis 06:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears that this person was mentioned as an interesting local character in a couple of old books in the 1800s. With no other sources on the supposed Mr. Cussans, it is entirely possible those authors made him up, and even if he was real he does not merit an encyclopedia article just because he was mentioned in an old book. He has no evidence of notability as a historical figure. Also the article creator has admitted above that the whole thing is copied word-for-word from a book, which is either a copyright violation or just plain lazy and unethical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: please strike that comment. cygnis insignis 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assessment. Wikipedia is for writers, not copiers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what quotation marks are. And that an accusation of copyvio is very serious? cygnis insignis 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all of the above. It's too bad that none of your diversion tactics make old Mr. Cussans any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you are aware you making a personal attack. I see how productive and helpful you are, that is not at all, and there is no need to pay you any mind. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the lazy comment is wrong, but we do have rules prohibiting copyright violations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But … what is your point. It pretty obviously isn't. cygnis insignis 13:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is he should not have called you lazy. There are other ways of putting it, such as plagerist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are not plagiarism either. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there is plagiarism and a plagiarist, you understand that difference too? cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You admit you coped the whole article, that is not quoting. A quote is "and they all lived happily ever after" not the whole story. Yes (buy the way) I do know the difference hence why I did not say "it would have been fair to call him a plagiarism".Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved it to my user space, with a view to perhaps restoring it to main space. The redirect can be deleted and discussion closed. cygnis insignis 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a redirect in main space to the draft. Thus the main space page William Cussans still needs deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you fixed that? cygnis insignis 13:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the redirect yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and don't userfy unless completely rewritten with new sources and new content that at least meets the A7 threshold). Agree with Johnpacklambert above; this is neither a suitable topic for Wikipedia, nor in fact is it a Wikipedia article at all; it's just a copy-pasted paragraph from a random, decidedly non-encyclopedic 19th-century work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this may be an amusing anecdote, it's not an encyclopedia article, and there's no evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:19, 6 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 16:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kabakov[edit]

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

Tenuous notability. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 13:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasons to delete article. Alexander Kabakov matches basic peoples notability criteria. A number of indepedent sources listed in article text, and it's not a big problem to add more. This person also have a big notability in IT industry as one of two founders of a Russian software company, prizing by IARPA at 2017, and publishing ambiguous and controversial face recognition technology implementation FindFace. In this role he got a big number of international press mentions - not only russian and american, but also french, chineze and other. Zircumflex2017 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable businessman, no actual claim to notability. Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, he should not be confused with the far more notable Aleksandr (Abramovič) Kabakov 188.216.192.146 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can find effectively nothing notable about this person per WP:BASIC; although he appears in several articles about his software, he is definitively not the subject. The article's creator and effectively sole maintainer contests that Kabakov "got a big number of international press mentions", yet links to one small article by a Russian propaganda outlet that's not even directly about Kabakov. I think FindFace, the subject that's actually covered by the citations in Kabakov's article, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (although its citations are currently in disrepair), but the subject himself categorically fails to meet notability guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:04, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent computer network[edit]

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

Almost 14 years and still no sources. Searching for sources, I can find a few uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network(s)" (e.g. this paper), but those uses I can find seem to have very little to do with the sense this article proposes. It seems to me that while a handful of reliable sources using this term can be found, their uses of the term don't have much in common with each other, and hence can't form a basis for an article. In other words, this isn't really a standard term in computer networking; various people will sometimes propose various ways in which networks could be made more intelligent, but those proposals have little in common with each other, and even less in common with the text of this article as it stands. (I would have PRODed but it was already PRODed back in 2006 and the deletion was contested then.) SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as WP:CSD#A7. Whilst there are a plethora of "intelligent computer network]]s" for which a case could be made, this article is so vague that it's impossible to tell what it's trying to mean. The article conveys no more knowledge than putting together random words from a technical dictionary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling, I had the same experience as the nom and was unable to find suitable sources. Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague to be verifiable WP:V- it's not clear that the article reflects reality. Notability is important WP:NI. This may be original research? WP:NOR Ericwg (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. From looking at the edit history, my reading is that this started out at intellgent network (sic), as an article on the Intelligent Network discussing the PSTN. But it wasn't particularly clear and overgeneralized. So it got renamed out of the way, people thinking that perhaps it was about some other subject, and the part about the PSTN then got removed. And here we are, 13 years later. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The page was forked by Charles Matthews soon after its creation. As this branch didn't develop, we might just merge them back together per WP:PRESERVE and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Deleting this edit history would be disruptive. See also WP:BROAD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligent Network (to which intelligent network redirects) is a valid article and forked from this years ago. It also has (as this article doesn't) a clear scope, which is obviously distinct from any meaning for a computer network. There's no overlap, there's no edit history here worth preserving. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose merge or redirect. One reason is that "intelligent computer network" is not a recognised name for the "Intelligent Network" series of ITU standards. Also, given the uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network" out there are so varied, the odds are low that someone looking up that phrase would actually be looking for the topic of the "Intelligent Network" article. Given it isn't really a helpful redirect, and there is little of value in the history, I think delete is the better outcome here. SJK (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The phrase "intelligent computer network" seems to hark back to 1990s thinking, and has rather been overtaken by the dumb network becoming standard. The first and standard comment I make is to the nominator: did you try Google Books? WP:BEFORE says you try Google Books. Then, a merge into context-aware network might work, in the sense that the page there (a) needs an explanation of the term, and (b) should be worked over anyway. Actually deleting old buzz-phrases isn't really the way to go. It is fairly normal, I'd say, that when the engineering approach moves on, the old language drops away. No need to be history is written by the victors about it, though, which isn't encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like "context-aware network" is a term that was fashionable around 2005. It's really the same issue as for this article, with added plagiarism (of Wikipedia, seemingly) in Google Books sources. To put the argument in better shape, if all that really can be referenced is a dicdef, then there is a case for deletion. With pages 2 to 19 of [15] missing, though, it is a bit hard to say that looking at Google Books is the "thorough search" for reliable sources required at WP:DEL-REASON, #7. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even when Google Books doesn't let you see a page, it will still let you search its text. A text search confirms there are only two mentions of "context-aware network" in that book – on page xi, the acronym "ACAN" is defined as "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network", and then pages 22-23 discusses ACAN. SJK (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I mean, the article isn't really coherent. I'd say merge or redirect, but it's been up for 14 years and still hasn't found a home. Hydromania (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At this point, I don't think there is any question that this article does not meet any sort of criteria for being kept, and Andy Dingley and SJK have very clearly explained why a Merge or Redirect would be inappropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because of lack of sources and vagueness of the existing text, I don't have any ideas on how to fix this. I haven't seen any good ideas from others either but will watch the discussion and am happy to change my opinion if a good idea emerges. ~Kvng (talk) 12:57, 7 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. Clear A7 case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CEOWORLD magazine[edit]

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

This "magazine" is a website, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), specifically WP:WEBCRIT. I can only find passing mentions, and nothing independent and in-depth. References based on CEOWORLD have been added to various Wikipedia articles, but this appears to be largely ref-spamming. Edwardx (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This meets CSD#A7 (web) with absolute ease. The current article is no more than a directory listing and the "magazine" has zero credibility (based on opinion surveys and what not) and coverage (check Google and GNews just). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:55, 4 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) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronilo Cervantes Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable student politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Student regent" at a university is not an WP:NPOL-passing political role — and the only reference here is a primary source namecheck of his existence in the university's own self-published list of its board of regents, not reliable source coverage about him in real media that's independent of the university. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails all notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BTW @Hugsyrup, Bearcat, and GPL93: Can somebody look at another similar article: Elijah San Fernando? The creator also made that. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FoxyGrampa75: Yup, just AfDed it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:42, 7 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 merge to Bing (search engine). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Predicts[edit]

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

Trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bing. There isn’t enough here for an independent article (yet) but no reason to lose it entirely. Many other features/services are covered in the main article. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:22, 4 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. Two relists have not produced a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Babar[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The only information I can is the CBE. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can also only find confirmation that she exists (Mirror and Google books) and of the CBE. I had understood that a CBE made someone notable - see Talk:Notability (awards and honors), but on looking again and reading the earlier discussion about this article I don't think there was consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always held a CBE or above to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. There is substantial precedent for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - It doesn't take long to find that there is very little coverage of the subject, and perhaps none that qualifies as significant. I don't see how a biography can be written based upon the available sources. So practically speaking, we get what we have, a fragment of a sentence from the relentlessly spare citation. As an aside, the year specified and linked to is incorrect — it's not the New Year's Eve Honours.
I do not value a sub-stub 'biography'. I did read the 'awards and honours' discussion. I cannot find, there or elsewhere, a statement wherein every CBE is guaranteed a biography. This is appropriate as there are too many people with this honour for it to be considered 'significant'. For comparative purposes, I took a look at the two higher ranks, of which there were typically no more than ten created each year combined (last few years excepted). In 2008, there were eight DBE/KBE created, seven of whom have pages and while none of them are expansive, it does seem that there was sufficient information available on each of them to write a biography. There were no GBE honours that year (FWIW, this is the level that I'd consider an SNG for). There should be sufficient material available to write the biography and I could not discover any with which this page might be fleshed out. Ultimately, the purpose here is to inform the reader and a husk of a biography fails at this so I must recommend 'delete'. ogenstein (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is considerable precedent for a CBE or above to be notable. Many AfDs have decided that this is the case. The CBE is an exceptionally notable award only awarded to those who have contributed substantially to the country, usually at a national level. In a country of over 60 million people, 100-200 awards every year is not a lot. The GBE is an exceptionally rare honour, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I should also point out that the usual award to men as an equivalent to the DBE is a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Nobel prize is exceptionally notable. For a given subject, only one (unless shared) is given out each year, so practically speaking, there is a limit to how many there are. The GBE has, from what I understand, a limit of 300 at any time. As such, wikipedia can have a list of GBE but there are too many CBE or DBE to do so. If there are too many to list, then it is a lot. As well, there are other countries with similar honours. Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs. If there isn't a meaningful defined restriction, as with the GBE, or with CC of the Order of Canada, then I think it is too large a net to cast.
To your aside, there are two names under KBE for 2008, and the OBE page classifies the two as the same (even if it discusses it in the text). If it is misleading, perhaps an update would help clarify. ogenstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The KBE and the DBE are at the same level, but the KBE is rarely awarded. Most men awarded a knighthood are appointed Knight Bachelor. Most women awarded the equivalent are appointed DBE. Just one of the peculiarities of the honours system. And no, there is no problem with creating stubs for people who are notable. We have generally made a cut-off point of CBE because far fewer of these are awarded than the lower OBE or MBE, where numbers of awards begin to mushroom, and they are generally only awarded for high achievement at a national level (whereas OBEs and MBEs may be awarded for achievement at a local level). To suggest that even a knighthood or damehood is not an indication of notability frankly shows a lack of understanding of the honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, "Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs.", oh, you mean similar to the 1/500 (or more) stubbies dedicated to notable sportspeople?, this is irrelevant, if the person is notable, they are notable, whether their page is a one line stub or a 5 page GA. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If they're actually notable but I don't believe that a one-line article is a good article. FWIW, I'd guess that sportstubs are beyond that level. I'd be up for changing both sportstubs and geostubs — even if it were by just folding them into a higher level page. I'm not going to advocate for an arbitrary fire hose. ogenstein (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and whats all this talk about "exceptional" honors and "Nobel prizes"? an honor/award needs to be "well-known and significant", see WP:ANYBIO, not "exceptional", of course someone who receives one of these significant (not necessarily exceptional:)) awards "are likely to be notable ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. Blumpf (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is long-standing precedent for the CBE being sufficent to establish notability. The first AfD was a fairly unanimous Keep, and I don't see any reason to re-litigate the issue again and again. Atchom (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional discussion on whether a CBE is sufficient to demonstrate notability on its own (per ANYBIO1) -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I'm the nominator) - Per WP:ANYBIO "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (my underline added on the last part). Insisting that ANYBIO1 means she has to have an article doesn't actually align with the ANYBIO policy. As we've all found, the only reason we can identify for this article is her CBE award. That's just not enough to reach WP:GNG on it's own. Based on a misinterpretation of ANYBIO, or a precedent set by a prior AfD that is being used to overwrite an existing policy (a quasi-policy that is now being discussed as if it were unchangeable), we're ignoring WP:NOCOMMON, and are left with a two-sentence stub that isn't likely to ever expand. How does treating the CBE as the sole criteria for notability improve Wikipedia? Orville1974 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It simply doesn't. The reader finds no new information after clicking her name at 2008_New_Year_Honours#Commanders_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE). Blumpf (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are plenty of short, uninformative articles on Wikipedia where the individual has been included on the basis of a single criteria conferring 'automatic notability'. Sportspeople being among the most common. In this case, a CBE is awarded for having a 'prominent' role at a national level, or a 'leading' role at a local level, and/or for 'distinguished contribution' to any area. Those are literally criteria for notability, so why second-guess it? Hugsyrup (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's true about the sports articles and I'd support an effort to change that but WP:NSPORTS currently provides specific requirements for notability in each sport (e.g. play one game in NFL) which, even if it makes for too low a bar, is a clear bar and an objective one. Even the supporters of CBE make arbitrary distinctions between it and the lower honours. And they're basically the same distinction that those who oppose the CBE line make just applied at a different level. I would prefer if these reflexive articles were merged into a list of some sort (e.g. New York Yankees players of the 1920s, CBEs of 2008) and should sufficient material subsequently appear, they could diverge into a separate article. I'm always disappointed when I click through to an article and find it empty. ogenstein (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is so few notable that nothing is known about her, except for a one time event. Is she even alive ? And if she is dead, where are the obituaries ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:50, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian heat wave[edit]

2019 Indian heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any reason why this does an individual article? It said the highest recorded temperature is in 2016, this seems we should have an yearly article on Indian summer heat? Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for adding the article: this 2019 heat wave had temperatures exceeding 50 degrees Celsius; and 17 people have been reported dead already. I thought readers might want to learn the significance of the >50 degree temperatures in comparison to the record high.Merlinsorca 18:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 17 dead certainly seems notable. There is WP:SIGCOV for the subject of the article in the references provided. We'll have to wait to see whether the impact is WP:LASTING. The article was probably written too soon. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 17 deaths is not especially high in terms of Indian heat waves. This is surprising given the high temperature. This may end up being notable, but the article was created WP:TOOSOON. According to our articles, 2015 Indian heat wave had 2,500 deaths, 2002 India heat wave, 1,030, 2016 Indian heat wave, 1,600. This newspaper reports 2,500 dead in 1998 and mentions that 1956 had an even higher temperature. This newspaper reports 350 deaths in 1995 while the heat wave was still ongoing. SpinningSpark 23:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although, as I said above, this was probably created TOOSOON, the unusually high temperature being reached suggests this is going to be a significant event. The 1998 heatwave was a degree or two lower but still killed thousands. Also, the nom seems to have been made on the premise that we don't have articles on India summer heat, which is demonstrably false. SpinningSpark 06:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because a weather event happens regularly doesn't mean it lacks notability. When it has a massive effect even weather events that happen multiple times a year (e.g. hurricanes) are notable. I would have loved to see this be created after a bit more time, TOOSOON is a real concern, but between having and not having this article we should have it - the sourcing is present to suggest it passes GNG and will have lasting notability beyond just this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; considering the temperature is notable by comparison, and a low death rate would be the notable result that heat-health warning systems have played an extremely important role in reducing deaths, including free water and reflective roof paint, indicating their efforts to cut heat deaths to zero are having an impact. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references present in the page present an in depth coverage of the subject (WP:SIGCOV). The temperatures have reached near maximum level ever recorded in history which will ensure lasting notability (WP:LASTING). Atleast 17 people have died and this is not the end of heat wave. Pratyush (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to List of heat waves#2019. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with heatwave and other seasonal meteorological phenomenons is that there are not going to be a lot to write about them, so unless one is an unprecedented event, I don't think we should have an article for each. And, yes, it is important, but if that happens every year, we are not going to document similar things each year in a separate article, there simply won't be anything left to write about besides basic informations, all the rest aren't going to be so different. This is especially so when this is such an early time to write anything about it or even know if it is important. Viztor (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FOARP, Spinningspark, Johnbod, Barkeep49, and PratyushSinha101:, If something happens regularly, that doesn't mean it's not important, but it does means we either have to repeat a lot things, like 90%, in these articles or we are left with simple facts. Viztor (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't exclude events because they happen regularly. We base inclusion on whether they have lasting notability. We have multiple articles on hurricanes and earthquakes for every year going back decades. Notable heat waves are much rarer than those events. They do not occur every year, or even most years, by any means, although they are becoming more frequent. SpinningSpark 10:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Things that happen regularly: sporting competitions, elections, television programs . . . need I go on? Simple regularity doesn't make something not notable. Lack of significant coverage and lasting impact makes an event non-notable. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As others have mentioned, you could say the same thing about hurricanes. We write multiple articles about those per year, even for the ones that cause 0 or minimal fatalities and even if the information in them is similar. See Tropical Storm Cindy (2017) and Tropical Storm Emily (2017). This heat wave has at least 28 dead since May 31, and it's still going on. Plus, each heat wave will have a different background or "meteorological history", different areas affected, different temperatures for each area, different number of fatalities and damage, and a government response or preparation specific to the situation. There's already plenty of information out there to differentiate this one, I think we just haven't given it enough research or focus. Merlinsorca 13:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Merlinsorca:This should not be compared like that. When a huge hurricane came "with a name", which has an international standard, you know for sure it is notable. However, this is not the case for heat wave, which is unnamed and has no international standard, and in most cases rather normal weather phenomenon, this is summer, and only notable in extreme cases. It is impossible to assert importance based all there is when it has only began, and have not reached its peak, We can't WP:CRYSTAL know if it is important. I will reserve my judgement for later months.Viztor (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we can only cover things that have "names" strike me as incorrect. We have tornado related coverage and those don't have names. Bigger picture, I agree I would have preferred to see the article wait to be created but it was created and the heatwave continues. The fact that we have ongoing high quality RS from around the world covering it suggesting that it is indeed out of the ordinary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Viztor: @Barkeep49: Also, after reading up on this subject, I don't believe the article was created too soon. The heat wave has been going on since May and had already killed dozens of people. As of today there has been: near record high >50 degree temperatures; water poured on melting streets; additional deaths/injures in fights due to water shortages; police being deployed. All of which has been amply covered in reliable sources. Merlinsorca 00:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I really thought it was TOOSOON I'd have voted something like draftify or delete. My overall assessment is in-line with you that this is a notable event. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 11 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. As noted by people here, for a publication to have a page it needs to meet a notability guideline first and not all of them do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu Tribune[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. No credible secondary sources cover the subject. IFJ and CPJ are circular references (IFJ and CPJ listing instances of them being mentioned in Kathmandu Tribune is attempted to use to validate Kathmandu Tribune's notability). It is a promotional article for a website that is trying to establish its identity as a legitimate news source. So far, the only indication of notability is this wikipedia article itself. Usedtobecool TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NCORP. There are a few sites with passing mention of Kathmandu Tribune, but I'm not finding any Reliable Sources with significant independent coverage about it. Alsee (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a new digital news media and this is the second time that so-called editors are abusing their power. The administrators should understand that new media companies emerge in any part of the world and one need not be New York Times or The Guardian to have their Wikipedia page. I am sure administrators will look into this like they have supported previously. And why not delete this page too? Naya Patrika Would any foreigners know that his newspaper exists in Nepal? What logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:Other stuff exists are not good arguments on a deletion discussion. Wikipedia doesn't care about supporting an emerging business or anything. Wikipedia is a collection of information that is already notable. SeeWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Editing is not done based on emotions. As much as we'd personally like to support independent emerging media, wikipedia is not a place to assert our personal/political/socio-political opinion on what wikipedia should be. We work with the wikipedia that is, not the wikipedia we wish it were. Usedtobecool TALK 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, you might want to see WP:Sockpuppet if you are contributing to same discussions, articles, etc. using different accounts and IPs at different times. WP:COI has information on how to approach contributing to wikipedia articles and topics you might have a personal stake on. Usedtobecool TALK 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Not relevant to the discussion but) Since you are pulling the Nepal card, I can assure you I am from Nepal and live in Nepal; and if we are to appeal to evidence that might not be accessible to foreigners; or it's your word against mine, I will bet my life on it that Kathmandu Tribune is a long long way away from becoming any sort of a reputed news publication. It's currently indistinguishable from any number of news blogs or other blogs for that matter; except for the amount spent on the graphic designer. Usedtobecool TALK 15:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP. The few citations in the article don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH and appear to just be a WP:NOTEBOMB. I couldn't locate any WP:SIGCOV during my own search outside the article. Orville1974 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added Nepal News Network International (AfD discussion) to the open AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Subject does not meet any form of notability. Searches through google and news provided no coverage results let alone signficant coverage. ogenstein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Two of the cites are organizations looking for mentions of themselves. starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 7 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Garcia[edit]

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

Looks like WP:ONEEVENT to me. Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Just WP:ONEEVENT and nothing more. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to 2013 Moore tornado - WP:ONEEVENT is not, primarily, a delete rationale. Instead the whole point of WP:ONEEVENT is that you should instead either rename the article to the event or merge it into an appropriate target article about the event because the article is basically about the event, not the person. In this case the clear target for merging is 2013 Moore tornado which covers the tornado that destroyed Garcia's house. Not all the content should be merged as some of it obviously isn't encyclopedic, but the basic story of Garcia does appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (CBS, The Oklahoman). FOARP (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - no point to merge. Thousands of houses destroy in tornadoes incident just like soldiers dies in war. No every soldier has an article in Wikipedia so it the destroyed house in a tornado. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have articles about servicemen who died in wars who were notable (sure, WP:WAX). The grounds used here are WP:ONEEVENT, not failure to reach WP:GNG which was not alleged. At any rate, even if WP:BASIC isn't met that doesn't matter if we're merging since the requirement for including something in an article is not that it should be worthy of a stand-alone article.
PS - this nom is a case-study of the problems with using WP:ONEEVENT as a delete rationale. It just was never intended to be used this way. It was always concerned primarily with the article title. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment To compare fallen soldiers who protect and service their countries, who have articles in Wikipedia, and to add a content of a public individual whose house got destroyed from natural event is far from reasonable nor right to justify your "merge" debate. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You invoked the comparison. I was merely pointing out that, yes, we do have articles about “soldiers [killed] in war” as well as about the wars in which they died. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*CommentThose fallen soldiers do have articles / content added in Wikipedia pass the notability do have "historical impact" in wars / countries relations and WP:NOTTEMPORARY as of houses destroyed or cars damaged by storms. That is what I meant by "far from reasonable nor right to justify your merge debate". CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But again, no-one is arguing that this article necessarily has stand-alone notability. It doesn't need to have stand-alone notability to be merged into another article. And if you meant WP:NOTTEMPORARY (PS - I think you mean WP:SUSTAINED), well, I do note that the news media were still reporting on her story even six months after the tornado (1 2 3) and that she was discussed in a book published in 2014 and 2015. TL;DR - she was the subject of multiple years of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. FOARP (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Just a many boxer, mma fighter, basketball players suffered injuries such as broken their obiter in 8 pieces, broken limps, tender completely tearing off from their bones and those individuals do have a page in Wikipedia and the info is well sources and do continued talk about in media due to such injury prevent them from their next title defenses or final playoff, it does not mean it it is included in the page content, let a alone a non notable individual lost their home in a storm/tornado which it happens thousand of time for the last decade just in US alone which play little significant as whole in the article. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Quality is too poor to merge (no citations). The tornado article claims $2 billion worth of damage and 24 fatalities. Why would this survivor be worth mentioning above all the rest? Blumpf (talk) 04:20, 11 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) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twin sort algorithm[edit]

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

I'm not at all clear why this is notable It seems to be intended only to promote the recent research of Devireddy, with no indication why anyone else should care Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the only source that's not just standard references for background material is a journal on Beall's list, you know it's worse than merely non-notable research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if anyone can show that this work receives attention by professionals in the field, however as a programmer I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. If I understood the paper correctly, this algorithm is already known as Odd–even sort. I also believe there is a severe error in the paper. An algorithm with (n-1)*(n/2) performance is not O(NlogN), it is O(N^2). Our article on Big O notation explains that. For large list sizes any O(N^2) algorithm will have catastrophically slow runtime on any standard computer. On massively parallel hardware it can have a runtime of N, but this is already standard knowledge in the field of parallel-sorting algorithms. Alsee (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Wikipedia:no original research policy is designed to prohibit things that have not yet escaped their inventors/creators and become acknowledged by the rest of the world as a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. In conjunction with our requirement for Wikipedia:reliable sources, this is intended to prevent us accepting things merely upon the say-so of people with no evidence of peer review and fact checking by people with established known reputations for accuracy.

    Alsee does not provide a rationale for deletion, but shows the rationale for these policies. This paper has clearly not been peer reviewed by a reputable journal. Any half-way decent peer review would have caught and rejected a claim to have just invented the odd-even sort in 2014. Moreover, this is one of the journals that the world has come to consider to have a bad reputation.

    So this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because the only source is one person (I have my doubts about the claimed co-authors.) with no established reputation for accuracy publishing via a route where no peer review took place, an unreliable source; and no-one else acknowledging this by dint of publishing more themselves, a lack of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.

    (See Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Oregon State University/Wikipedia - Universally Shared, Edited by Whom (Spring) for why I have laid this out in detail. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable5 and User:Uncle G/On sources and content.)

    Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Alsee. Non-notable and apparently poor work academically to boot. SpinningSpark 23:22, 4 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. As noted by participants here, the coverage needs to be about a topic before we can write a page on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Budhathoki[edit]

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

As perWP:GNG. The paper deceptively cites a zillion pages which are all articles authored by the subject himself and not the articles discussing the subject so as to establish notability. The page was created by User:Dansong22 which is signed(?) "ArunBudhathoki" making this a suspected autobiography by a user with undisclosed COI (I can't find the declaration). The article is promotional. There are two major contributors to the page, the other being User:Ozar77 who also created related pages Kathmandu Tribune and Nepal Tribune Media (which is currently facing an AfD discussion itself.) I suspect User:Ozar77 is also a sockpuppet or a paid editor (based on a brief perusal of their talk page: potentially lucrative pages that the user has created and discussions that it has elicited and actions taken on them) of the same person Arun Budhathoki. Their talk page is filled with posts suspecting COI, also. Please advise if there's sufficient evidence to suspect that, and if there is, what further actions can be taken. (I apologise if you can't suspect sockputtery publicly like this and I will remove it if that is the case. Appreciate any advice.) Usedtobecool TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 05:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed two sockpuppet keep-votes and comments by the IP and sockmaster account. IP and sockmaster now blocked.
    • Opinion:It is clear you have a grudge or some personal issues with the writer or you have been paid by someone to do this. And you wrote this: " I have searched for this person with all search terms I could think of, in Roman as well as Devanagari script. Finally, a fallacious argument: Nor have I or anyone I know of ever heard of him (I should as a resident compatriot)". So you work for The Kathmandu Post prolly a writer who has published book, right? no wonder why you are so obssessed to delete this page...and Why haven't your proposed deletion for these pages then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nepalese_journalists as you are an expert in JOURNALISM AND KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW MEDIA WORKS IN NEPAL. YOU ARE JUST ABUSING YOUR EDITOR POWER. AND I HOPE ADMINISTRATORS WILL NOTICE THIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to challenge me here, at one place, where I was actually arguing your side. LOL! In any case, AfD is not a vote, closing administrators always look at the merit of the arguments; and whether contributing editors are taking sides on emotions, with malice, or per COI. If we were all a syndicate of 20 editors conspiring against one person- you, the end result would still go in your favor. Also, editors don't have any powers to abuse. You and I have all the same rights. I don't use my rights to work exclusively on less than half a dozen pages related to one person alone. That is the only difference, one which I'm sure anyone, admin or not, will notice when they but scratch the surface. And, btw, would you like to declare any COI or sockpuppetry at the moment? Usedtobecool TALK 07:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ReplyYou are on my side? really? that's hilarious...you've been attacking only this page and pages associated to this page...are you uncomfortable now that I have exposed that you work for The Kathmandu Post? Are you acting on behalf of your institution or an individual? Because you are only attacking this page. FYI, I only have access to this username. I know you don't have power to abuse but your persistent motive and your use of English (and I know who writes that way in The Kathmandu Post), and your activism against a journalist doesn't make it so. Can I assume you are a feature editor of The Kathmandu Post? Because your writing style matches his. So are you going to accept you work for The Kathmandu Post as you confessed that you are a 'resident compatriot'. I never challenged you...nor do I care about your LOL because you dodged my question when I said you work for TKP. Now, if you are a journalist too of TKP then say it?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think my English can pass off as that of a "feature editor" of one of the national newspapers of the country, I can see how foreigners would have trouble finding these papers credible. Thanks for the compliment though. Usedtobecool TALK 10:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny that you should deny sockpuppeting in exactly the thread where you've been replying to a conversation as two different users. Even when you don't sign your comment, it gets signed by a bot, and here, it is for all to see Ozar77 replying to a conversation with IP 27.34.68.251. Just for your peace of mind though, these articles were brought to my attention by Alsee and my contributions' history will attest to that. Usedtobecool TALK 10:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is at the center of several open AFD's (Nepal Tribune Media (AfD discussion), Kathmandu Tribune (AfD discussion), The Applicant (AfD discussion) and a redirect placed on Nepali Tribune. There is clear evidence of promotional COI. Of the set of articles, this one comes the closest to a credible claim as Notable. Arun Budhathoki appears to be a reasonably successful reporter, who has done work for a variety of Notable publications. However the profession of reporter does not in itself satisfy our Notability criteria. Our standard for Notability is not whether someone writes, it is whether they are written about by others in Reliable Sources. Arun Budhathoki has also published poetry and fiction, however anyone can buy an ISBN for a few dollars and publish anything. Again, the standard for notability is whether others have written about Budhathoki or written about his work. Reviewing all of the REFs in the article may seem daunting (see WP:BOMBARDMENT), however it is immediately obvious that most of them are written by Budhathoki, and they can quickly be skipped when checking for Notability. Of the potentially Reliable Sources not written by Budhathoki, the best one appears to be thehimalayantimes/Himalayan News Service discussing his poetry. However thehimalayantimes/Himalayan News Service runs blatant promotional press releases, severely undermining any weight it would have as a source for objective independent critical note. Alsee (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion:I trust THT to generally be as accurate as they can in their reporting. Nothing other than news and editorial from Nepali news sources (even the most reputed ones) can be trusted, especially not on online media. However, this was reported as news. It is possible they were paid to count this event as news. Or someone high up might have owed someone favour. It's also as likely that THT needed content to fill the space. However, none of those hypotheses are necessary. The event was reported as news and THT abides by the principles. All the praises are quotes from another attending the event. other things are quote by the primary source. The reporting part was on that event having occurred and the book having been published by Cyberwit. If its a slow news day, Nepali media will cover any event. But, I'd count this one as a news event as covered by THT; without betting significant equity on the proposition that there is no way THT didn't have COI in publishing this one. Either way, all news services have some COI, arguably, on everything they publish. So, we can't make such judgements ourselves. Usedtobecool TALK 18:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:BASIC & WP:AUTHOR , i don't see any reason for this article to be nominated for AfD, I also find that he have enough more content with which the article can be edited and expanded elaborately since his recent Coverage was published and was trending on The Guardian Shringhringshring📞 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shringhringshring as I commented above, of the related set of articles I think this comes the closest to being Notable. I'm interested in your comment about coverage, and that the article can be expanded. I might reverse my !vote if you can point me to coverage about Budhathoki. If you are merely referring to coverage-of-an-unrelated-topic which was written by Budhathoki, then that is unhelpful. The profession of reporter does not inherently satisfy our Notability guideline. A reporter becomes Notable when the world takes Note of them, when independent authors write significant content about him and his work. Then we summarize what they say about the subject. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No. This individual does not meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:JOURNALIST. I tried finding enough to meet any of the categories with no success. Publishing books, by itself, is not enough. Having a few republished articles is not enough. No one is providing WP:SIGCOV of this individual in a WP:RS. I've just added Nepal News Network International (AfD discussion) to the list of ongoing AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a published journalist in itself does not satisfy WP:BIO. I don't see any articles "about" the subject, just articles written by him. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles written by the subject don't count as reliable sources to establish this subject's notability. One can see that those are the vast majority in this article. starship.paint (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - A google search did not produce any instances of significant coverage. A news search only provided articles written by the subject, which doesn't count towards notability or every reporter would become notable on their first day. I don't see that subject meets Basic or Author, per above. ogenstein (talk) 03:32, 11 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music Promo Today[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, provided sources are PR, blog posts and Forbes contributors (i.e. blog posts again). The one ok source is the coverage in Respect Magazine, but even that is mostly just an interview with the founders. I couldn't find anything better online. I'm not really sure why there's two citations about TikTakTo, as it does not appear to be related to the subject. I had previously filed G11, which I still think was justified based on the PR nature of virtually all of the sources cited, but it was declined. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete heavily promotional with no indication of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd argue this is a hair shy of unambiguous advertising (WP:G11) and needs to go. Ericwg (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH Orville1974 (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rosguill, it's simply that TicTacTo was founded by the same two people as Music Promo Today, so it's a desperate attempt to add WP:INHERITED notability to a non-notable subject. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the creator for suspected undisclosed paid editing. MER-C 11:09, 7 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 Blinds.com. So that people who need the history can copy material from it; Djflem's argument hasn't attracted opposition but the consensus is clearly in favour of getting rid of the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Steinfeld[edit]

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

Biography with sourcing primarily to blogs, interviews, press releases (via PRNewswire) and the company he founded. GNews returns nothing but name-drops and press releases (string: "Jay Steinfeld" Houston). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — seems like promotion, same throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyNotSarcasm (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional advert that is a case of WP:PROMO with most of the content coming from a promotional entry on an unreliable blog site, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Blinds.com as that page could use the history provided here.Djflem (talk) 19:36, 4 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gold-collar worker[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and outside of the book that coined this term it appears it has not received significant coverage or usage. WP:SIGCOV I can find a few examples of usage but most seem more intended to introduce the term than use it generally. ex. Havard Business Review This article seems to more be promotional of this as jargon in that sense than encyclopedic. There are some conflicting definitions when you search "Gold collars are found in specialized fields of law and medicine – a reference, perhaps, to the high salaries these professions command." [16] "a neologism which has been used to describe either young, low-wage workers who invest in conspicuous luxury, or highly skilled knowledge workers, traditionally classified as white collar, but who have recently become essential enough to business operations as to warrant a new classification." see self.gutenberg.org/articles/Gold-collar_worker "A gold-collar worker is a highly skilled multidisciplinarian who combines the mind of a white-collar worker with the hands of a blue-collar employee. Armed with a solid grounding in mathematics and science (physics, chemistry, and biology), these “gold-collar” workers—so named for their contributions to their companies and to the economy, as well as for their personal earning ability—apply that knowledge to technology." [17] A page on Wikipedia copying the definition word for word from the Havard Business Review article linked above. Phil (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Phil (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely not-a-dictionary material. This is the kind of thing that seems to exist on wikipedia so someone can use it by claiming "well it's on wikipedia..." Ericwg (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One tin-collar WP:NEOLOGISM that no one is rushing to spread. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This term is not in particularly common use, and when it is used it doesn't necessarily carry the meaning described here. For example, this article describes Carlos Ghosn, former chairman of Nissan, as "typical of the ‘gold-collar workers’ – the cadre of top bosses who have multi-million pound pay packages, couture-clad second wives and private jets." Yet this article says that "Gold-collar workers need the mind of a white-collar worker but the hands of a blue-collar one .... Think of the maintenance technician who repairs aircraft systems at Southwest Airlines; the manufacturing technician at Intel; and the medical technologist who operates laboratory equipment and analyzes test results at Memorial Hermann Cancer Center." Two quite different uses, but neither of them matches the use in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_June_4&oldid=1142613650"