Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Regulation of electronic cigarettes#Other countries. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarettes in Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable topic with few sources, no similar articles, and no apparent notability. No purpose to it; easily can be redirected elsewhere. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Even a bold speedy one?) Not notable in its own right. Completely redundant. Already much better covered at Regulation of electronic cigarettes#Other countries. At best a redirect to that. Aoziwe (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability refutation - an odd statement, but I feel notability is clearly established, despite the few sources - specifically the 1st and 3rd, which have such comprehensive "background" consideration that Sig Cov is easily covered. What is more up for grabs is Aoziwe's CONTENTFORK argument - I'm unsure of my viewpoint on that, so I'm leaving it un!voted on, at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a content fork. Regulation of electronic cigarettes#Other countries covers it in better detail. There is no Electronic cigarettes in the US or the UK. Therefore, there is no reason to keep this article. @Redditaddict69: there is another content fork. See Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes. See discussion on talk page. See Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes#Issues_have_not_been_resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redditaddict69: do you think the content fork or POV fork should be nominated for deletion or redirected at this time? See Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes. See discussion on talk page. See Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes#Issues_have_not_been_resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Regulation_of_electronic_cigarettes#Other_countries. That seems to be an appropriate place for currently existing information. Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unique content to Regulation of electronic cigarettes#Other countries. That should be the most appropriate place. Unoc (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As other users have pointed it out, I favor a merge too, the article does not hold enough weight on its own.Garlicolive (talk) 01:18, 25 March 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. Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francine McKenna[edit]

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

Journalist who doesn't appear to have garnered any recognition beyond bylines on articles that she's written. I don't see any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. While searching online, I found this article which would allege that she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. According to a Google Scholar search, McKenna's h-index appears to be about 3, and that's only if you include citations for articles that she wrote in mass media publications (i.e. not scientific papers), which is far short of WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article because I felt that she was pretty influential in the corporate accounting world. I would be willing to better the article, but I certainly feel that she is relevant enough for Wikipedia's standards as I read them. Mailman9 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant independent coverage of her and I see nothing that shows notability as a reporter or professor.Sandals1 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received recognition - she is quoted as a consultant and expert, and her blog recommended, in several textbooks, and many newspaper articles, about business and corporate ethics. She meets WP:AUTHOR #1: "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". I have added some references (including a quote from one textbook that her blog "should be on every corporate accountant and CPAs watchlist"), and will try to add more. I am somewhat hampered by Google books not showing all pages around references, and also in trying to work out what the issues are that she reported on, that these sources are referencing her about (eg involving Lehman Brothers, Ernst & Young, AIG, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:18, 18 March 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PlaidML[edit]

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

I've actually come across PlaidML as part of my day job, but it doesn't appear to me that there's enough coverage in reliable sources for it to meet notability guidelines. In an internet search for the term, I was able to find a few Medium blog posts that examined PlaidML in depth, but no RS. A Google Scholar search returned a half dozen articles that name-dropped PlaidML as an example of a Keras-compatible backend, but don't appear to give it further coverage (and none of them had significant citation counts). Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I respectfully disagree with you on this. PlaidML is an important piece of software as it's currently the only way to circumvent the CUDA monopoly and perform platform-independent machine learning tasks without having to rely on a single vendor and its proprietary framework. I'm well aware of the fact that both PlaidML AND this article still need a lot of work and have lots of room for improvements but deleting it would definitely do more harm than good. Thus, I'm strongly in favour of keeping it. Gromobir (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that would back up those statements? You may be right about the role of PlaidML among other ML tools, but ultimately we need reliable sources saying this that we can cite. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there references backing up my statements. For example:

"The PlaidML really surprised me with its ease of installation, performance and substantial documentation.", "I must say that this project not only makes the domain of deep learning accessible to a wider variety of people but also helps reduce the demand, and hopefully the price, of GPUs." (https://medium.com/@Vatsal410/keras-without-nvidia-gpus-with-plaidml-and-amd-gpu-4ba6f60025ce).
"If, however, you have an AMD GPU card, as I do in my University-provided 2017 Macbook Pro, then none of the above support your hardware, you have very few options. In fact, until this blog post, I thought you had none. Enter PlaidML! PlaidML is another machine learning engine – essentially a software library of neural network and other machine learning functions. Conveniently, PlaidML can be used as a back-end for Keras also. And, unlike basically every other such engine, PlaidML is designed for OpenCL, the poorer, open-source cousin of NVIDIA’S CUDA GPU programming language. Plus, it works on Macs. (PlaidML is Python based)." (https://informatics.sydney.edu.au/blogs/amdgpu/)
"PlaidML is a multi-language acceleration framework that:

   Enables practitioners to deploy high-performance neural nets on any device,
   Allows hardware developers to quickly integrate with high-level frameworks,
   Allows framework developers to easily add support for many kinds of hardware,
   Works on all major platforms — Linux, macOS, Windows.,
   Accelerates deep learning on AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, ARM, and embedded GPUs."

(https://medium.com/@akashdeepjassal/plaidml-a-alternative-open-source-deep-learning-library-for-all-gpus-accfe6b879b)

Do you consider these sources to be reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromobir (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medium posts are generally not reliable unless the author is a readily identifiable expert in the given subject (see WP:BLOGS). The Sydney University post, despite being a blog, is likely reliable due to its affiliation with a reputable research institution. However, I'm not sure that that article has enough information about the subject to single handedly establish notability: all the article tells us is that 1) PlaidML can be run on a 2017 Macbook Pro and 2) how to install it. Admittedly #1 does make it somewhat unique among other ML toolkits, but ideally I'd like to see more coverage about its actual performance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the performance, some Phoronix benchmarks are available: (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=plaidml-nvidia-amd&num=1). Gromobir (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be controversial but it is a fairly obscure and at this time unique product that it is worth keeping the article. Its bleeding edge software design and WP has few of these types of articles. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given both the split views and particularly on the status of the given sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn E. Calhoun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only sources used are obituaries. Also note he ran the Pelican Publishing Company, which is not Pelican books. GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Pelican Publishing Company. His purchase and running of the publisher attracted some non-regional coverage in the 1970's (Publisher's Weekly and West Coast Review of Books). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The paragraph, "Background" is an very close paraphrase of the Monroe News-Star obituary[1] - close enough that I would suggest this version of the article be deleted. I am not sure that the subject is encyclopedic, but I suspect his is. Newspapers.com shows his purchase of Pelican Publishing and his death to have been fairly widely covered in Louisiana and Mississippi. There are articles about Bayou Books, Calhoun Publishing Company, Pelican Publishing, and his role in each. There are also articles about his philanthropy, which while entirely(?) focused on Monroe area charities, did include a $1 million endowed chair in the names of his parents at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Pelican Publishing Company. I do not think he is notable apart from his company. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete bios of music publishers and producers, absent other notability, as being too common. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth a relist to consider the merge/delete dispute
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC; nothing worth merging as the target article would not be improved by this content. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 20 March 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 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InCab University[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. Seems to have died a death in 2008. No coverage, article sources are not resolving. scope_creep^Talk 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability far from established Mccapra (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 20 March 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 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Khanna[edit]

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

non notable. No significant independent reliable source. Possible COI with Vidhi Bharti Parishad ToT89 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is editor of 25 years old Journal of repute. 171.79.207.152 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - n signs of notability, as there are no mentions in sources of any kind, all sources mentioned in the article are self published/primary sources by subject themselves. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:13, 23 March 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 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Russell (podcaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable podcaster/journalist. Article unsuccessfully attempts to WP:COATRACK his notability but there's no significant coverage, nor anything I can see that would satisfy any of the N criteria. The only reason it appears he's getting even mentions at this time is because of the death of Luke Perry. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent, significant coverage with only passing mentions in the sparse citations in the article. Mostly social media and unreliable sources are used in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AuthorAuthor. --mikeu ^talk 12:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Owls[edit]

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

Article about a band with no reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. In fact, the band's own self-published Facebook profile is the closest there is to a reference anywhere at all here -- and while there have been other references in the article in the past, none of them were good ones: even at its best, it was referenced entirely to WordPress or Blogspot blogs and PR platforms, and has never in its entire history shown even one genuinely reliable or notability-supporting source at all.
There's also a conflict of interest issue here, as the article was created by somebody whose user name was strongly suggestive of a PR agent ("Oneuppr") and has since been frequently edited by the subject himself -- although that hasn't rendered the article's writing tone advertorialized enough to speedy, it does still suggest that the core goal here was to use Wikipedia as a publicity machine instead of an encyclopedia.
As always, the notability test for musicians or bands is not just that their own self-published social networking presence verifies that they exist: it is that reliable sources, independent of the subject's own marketing, cover them in the context of something that satisfies an NMUSIC criterion. But nothing like that is being shown here at all, and there's no prior version I can restore that did a better job of showing anything like that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable Irish band. Not even borderline. The best reference is from the Athlone Advertiser [2]. Britishfinance (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:SIGCOV. In terms of the notability criteria for bands, the subject does not seem to have charted in Ireland under stage name or real name, has not received or been nominated for any awards that I can find (IMRO, Meteor, Choice, MTV UK&I, etc), has not been subject of any significant radio play or rotation, and has not released any major or well-covered works or albums. While there is evidence of some reviews in main stream press and music press, these largely represent the type of run-of-the-mill coverage expected for a debut album or release. And hence would not seem to meet the threshold of SIGCOV. The promotional and COI overtones are also a concern. In short: delete. Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Richardson Kennedy[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. While there are quite a few hits regarding this individual, other than trivial mentions, all deal with her as Kennedy's wife and/or her suicide. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI @Onel5969:, I created this back in 2012 as a redirect, which it remained as until today, when @Willthacheerleader18: turned it into an article. FWIW I think there's enough out there about her to merit an article, but if it's not kept the redirect should be restored. Giant Snowman 17:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject, IMHO, is notable. Much of her notability appears inherited as it is established through her marriage, legal separation from her husband, and her suicide, but these are multiple events and not a singular notable event. Being a co-founder of the Food Allergy Initiative is nothing to scoff at either. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My thoughts largely echo what GiantSnowman said. Notability is not inherited but there is substantial coverage of her, spurred on because of who she married, but since that coverage exists, and she does have some independent accomplishments, it feels like she passes my test of GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Djflem (talk) 20:17, 23 March 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 and redirect to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Competing entries. Sandstein 21:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wear Your Love[edit]

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

Song from an artist whose article was deleted per community consensus. Fails WP:NSONGS. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. No mentions in reliable media other than passing mentions in coming fourth in a qualifying competition, and no chart action. Arguably could now be speedily deleted under WP:A9, but one way or the other it certainly fails notability criteria now. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to small for single article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019, no notability besides that competition. —Kusma (t·c) 17:31, 20 March 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. Sandstein 21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hortencio Pereira[edit]

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

Undersoured in tone, plus it contains some read like an advertisement which leaning towards a dubious notability despite more than 200 roles. Sheldybett (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is under sourced because he is an actor from Indias smallest state Goa, even though actors from Goa are not world famous, they are recognised all over the state as Artists. The major source you will find is here Tiatr Academy Goa. they perform in Theatre and not everything about Them is online. --Tiatr.lover(talk) 10:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiatr.lover - welcome to Wikipedia! Not all your references have to be online - you can source from books and magazines if you need. Have a look at WP:CITEHOW for more information - or you can ask experienced editors at the Teahouse. --Spacepine (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Spacepine. Thank you for your comment. I am new to Wikipedia & don't know much. I will definitely look into it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiatr.lover (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sorry you got caught up in Articles for deletion so soon - most of it is a bit nicer than this. After you comment you can sign your name by writing 4 tildes (~~~~) to help keep track of the conversation. --Spacepine (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Tiatr.lover (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article includes too many personal details and minor squabbles and needs to be reduced to a more concise account of his life and works but he clearly passes criteria 2 of WP:NACTOR having made prolific contributions to his art, namely theatre as well as his music. He has some coverage in reliable sources but there is probably more offline given Goa's reduced online prescence and overall he deserves a place in Wikipedia, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Atlantic306. A notable artist in a niche area. There are other WP articles on Tiatrists and Konkani Theatre (and its major academys, per the article). However, he also gets coverage in WP:RS en-sources who identify him as notable like The Times of India [3] [4] [5]. On 16 March 2019, the main en-Goa paper, O Heraldo called him "The lyrics are penned down by Hortencio Pereira, a renowned tiatrist from Sanvordem." [6]. O Heraldo refer to him in other articles: [7] [8], and review his works [9] Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 24 March 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 21:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Tatum[edit]

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

The individual does not meet notability. He's a mid-level employee at Turning Point USA whose own founder does not meet notability per Wikipedia Consensus

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, what reliable sources I could find about him were all regarding a single event, which was his dismissal from the Tucson Police Dept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll add that to the page. I can see that he was on the force, that his boss was unhappy about the social media posts, and that he is no longer on the force. But there are so many sources. I read a lot, but I dind't see something explaining whether he was fired or quit, or the date. So, if you remember where you saw that, adding it would be useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I searched harder; Arizona Daily Star says Tatum quit. Added to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability beyond perhaps a BLP1E. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable low level political activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political operatives aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but the only reference being cited here at all just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject of enough sustained and substantive media coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible article, sourced to look like WP:BLP1E, it appears to have been written as an attack page to discredit Tatum. My searches show that he has been getting press coverage for years and has 124K twitter followers and 251,814 subscribers to his YouTube channel. ~~I support Delete, but~~ (striking after lookin gmore closely at sources available) there should be no prejudice against a new page written with adequate sourcing and a NPOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social media does not mean notability. Also, feel free to share the links on that years of press coverage you claim to have found.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast: "Candace Owens and Brandon Tatum have become two high-profile and highly controversial mouthpieces for the movement... Tatum is director of urban engagement at Turning Point USA."; Arizona Daily Star, 2017,: Tucson police officer pushes boundaries with viral rants: "When Brandon Tatum starts talking into his camera, you get the feeling he will burst if he doesn’t unload right then. Tatum, a Tucson police officer, started his Sept. 25 YouTube rant this way: “Alright, we’re going to talk. Now, y’all have made me talk.”He went on to lambaste NFL players who have protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. And a segment of the country embraced him, viewing the video more than 410,000 times, making him a viral video star of the week once again...."; Washington Post, 2016: Police officer: Trump protesters were ‘the most hateful, evil people I’ve ever seen’: "Brandon Tatum, an officer in the Tucson Police Department, went to a Trump rally on Saturday as a civilian to see what was going on. In a subsequent video, he said he thought there was going to be “a full-fledged riot” at the event — but not because of Trump’s supporters. The protesters were the problem, Tatum said....". All I did was key his name into a gNews search, and, as I wrote above, SIGCOV going back years comes up. More came up in a Proquest news search. Frankly, I grow weary of rewriting articles at AfD on individuals whose POV I find inimical, but I am also tired of seeing individuals deleted without the least evidence that Nom or other editors commenting have run a simple WP:BEFORE search on gNews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mpen320, I see now that you nominated the article and forgot to sign the nominating statement. I think that if I had nominated an article, and an experienced editor wrote something like: "My searches show that he has been getting press coverage for years and has 124K twitter followers and 251,814 subscribers to his YouTube channel." I would go back and and run a gNews search before assuming bad faith by dismissing the "years of press coverage you claim to have found."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 10 March 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)} 14:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meets GNG. When the sources include The Washington Post across multiple years (2016, 2018, 2019), plus the Arizona Daily Star, plus Fox News (2017 and 2018), plus the Daily Beast, Riverfront Times, and The Arizona Republic, the deal is sealed. XavierItzm (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY ~~Keep~~ (changing to MERGE, see below). Page has been thoroughly revised, sourced, more can still be done, but notability is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and article content can't change notability. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er... WP:HEYMANN upgrades demonstrate notabilty that was not on the page when the discussion began. Editors have rewritten the page showing WP:SIGCOV that began in ~2004 with his college football career. (ROUTINE coverage of his career as a police officer but was not added to the page.) Coverage of his outspoken, controversial political views began in 2016 and has continued into 2019.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004 coverage was all local news outlets. We aren't talking anything national until 2016, and even then it was in the context of that one rant of his. The page includes articles such as 1, 2, and 3. 2 & 3 mention Tatum's name a total of four times.. The Daily Beast link is an opinion piece that is really about Tatum's position at TPUSA. For a second, I would say that the Fox News piece may make the opposite case for you, but then I read it. The only takeaway related to Tatum is a single quote which is used in the aforementioned opinion article. Go figure. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - I think a line or two documenting his role could be added to Turning Point USA, along with mention of his former employer and controversy of leaving, which seems related to his new position. A lot of good work has been done for the article in the days since it was first nominated for deletion, and in the future if there is a bit more significant coverage such that this subject eventually meets WP:BASIC, it would be nice to see that work to have gone to waste. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject fully meets WP:BASIC because
1. Multiple published secondary sources that are reliable - yes, the article has 17 different sources, which include The Washington Post, the Tucson Citizen, the Arizona Daily Star, the Riverfront Times, The Daily Beast, Fox News, etc..
2. Intellectually independent - yes, clearly established because the sources reflect different events in the biography of the subject at different times (the sources date from 2004, 2005, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) and reflect the three main phases of the career of the subject, i.e., his sports career, his police officer career, and his activist career.
3. Independent of the subject - yes, no need to elaborate, but clearly zero sources are blogs or owned or controlled by the subject.
These are the the three criteria required by WP:BASIC, which furthermore adds: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable". XavierItzm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as almost every single reference seems to mention him in connection with Turning Point USA. There is a lack of depth in coverage which makes it seem that, while Turning Point is notable, Tatum himself isn't. For example, [10] describes him in a single line. [11] is an article about Candace Owens and only contains a couple of quotes by him. The links to his "sports career" are local news coverage, the kind which covers regional events. These do not indicate notability. The somewhat OK coverage is about the video which went viral [12], but that's like a single event. Subsequent coverage seems to be mention him very briefly in context of turning point [13]. I think redirect is a good option here. In the future if he manages to become as high profile as say, Candace Owens, there could be an independent article about him.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill middle level operative. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Although Tatum's POV is aversive to most editors, I do think that we can all agree on the need to describe sources accurately. It is flagrantly untrue that "almost every single reference seems to mention him in connection with Turning Point USA" - sources now on the page show Turning Point be his 2nd paid employment as a political activist, both jobs came after the national attention in 2006, and 2007. And article meets BASIC because his childhood, college football career, ane employment history are covered in multiple WP:RS, as is his political activism. Nor is overage of a college football career is not mere "local," coverage, especially not when it is revisited by national media a decade later. It is inaccurate to dismiss "the video that went viral" as "a single event" because there were two such "events", the Trump campaign thing in 2016 and the "crybabies" thing in 2017 related to the U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present). Fact is, "run of the mill middle level operative(s)," do not get the kind of coverage that Tatum continues to get.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turning Point USA seems reasonable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gilded Rage: A Wild Ride Through Donald Trump's America, Alexander Zaitchik, Skyhorse Publishing, has this section: [14]. It's a collected reporting on the Trump campaign sort of book, original story ran in Salon.com, My week inside the Donald Trump campaign: Sheriff Joe, Sean Hannity and behind the scenes at an Arizona rally and Trump HQ. I try to come back and double-check my opinion when a discussion goes into a second week. This shows that my previous searches were by no means exhaustive. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longer this discussion continues, the more uncomfortable I become with the political views of this individual. He's still on a campus speaking tour, and in today's news but in a source that is pretty far out there The Rebel Media: "School won't host 'White Privilege Is A Myth' event headlined by black former police officer". I argue, strongly, for KEEPING people like this, people like Kremlin propagandist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khalek (2nd nomination) and topics like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force and Determination (Hungary), because covering notable movements and individuals that promote ideas that WEJUSTDONTLIKE is part of what an encyclopedia does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's actions in 2016 cited in a book while he was a police officer, and long, long before he became a TPUSA employee really ought to put the kibosh on the theory that the subject is not independently notable of TPUSA. I see the book is now cited in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources; fails WP:BASIC. Not independently notable of TPUSA, while a merge would not improve the target article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, arguably violates BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A thorough and comprehensive explanation of how this article easily passes WP:BASIC is listed above, dated 16 March. With regard to BLP1E, please note how the current article passes WP:BLP1E:
1. "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." - passes, the article has 19 different sources, which are from the years 2004, 2005, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. The sources are from different events in the life of the subject. For example, the 2004 and 2005 newspaper articles tend to be from the subject's athletic career while in college. The 2016 sources tend to be from one event while the subject was a police officer, and include one The Washington Post citation, for example; the 2017 sources generally arise from an entirely different event that also took place while the subject was a police officer; the final seven sources, dated October 2017 to February 2019, and which include two articles from The Washington Post, document the subject's later career as a political activist. It cannot be argued with a straight face that "a single event" applies in any way, so the article passes.
2. "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - passes, this is why newspapers around the nation have cumulatively reported on the individual for decades now and reflect the three main phases of the career of the subject, i.e., his sports career, his police officer career, and his activist career. How many low profile individuals get newspaper coverage decade after decade, 2004 to 2019?
3. "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" - this third criterion does not apply as the subject has been followed by the news media across the years, and not for one single event.
WP:BLP1E requires that all three conditions be met: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". Insofar as the subject does not met condition 1, does not meet condition 2, and does not meet condition 3, it is impossible to say that the article violates BLP1E. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to say "decades" since he doesn't pass our college athlete notability guidelines. At best he's been cited in a few articles and isn't notable on his own - the BLP1E doesn't really matter all that much. Cheers, SportingFlyer T·C 06:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of his college football career is coverage. More to the point, he meets WP:BASIC. The 2016 BLP1E argument is tendentious because sources on page show that he has been in the news continuously in 2017, 2018, and 2019: Brandon Tatum a "high-visibility black Trump supporter", 2019 "Chants of ‘We love Trump, U-S-A!’ echoed across the East Room of the White House before, during, and after President Donald Trump’s address.... part of the Young Black Leaders Summit (YBLS)... student-activist group, Turning Point USA, is hosting the event. Brandon Tatum... Director of Urban Engagement at Turning Point USA... told Fox News that....E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should be deleted. It is page about a professional football player who now works for a conservative group and he happens to be African American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.73 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 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 21:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naimouza High School[edit]

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

Typical non-notable school, zero reliable sources available. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 15:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL as the school has not received substantive coverage in multiple independent and secondary sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:38, 18 March 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.

Sorry, but i had to turn the volume down. I’m a music fan—all genres. But i specialize in the shit that went undiscovered or overlooked. I just listened to Wildside’s album Under the Influence. Not my first go round w these dudes. I know they didn’t make a ton of records, and i don’t know shit about critical acclaim, but i can tell you this. Listening to this album on march 24, 2019 was like a time machine. And yet it held up. Anyone who says otherwise, i’d love the opportunity to talk music w them. And give them a chance to discover an amazing album while i’m at it

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wildside (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Created by an editor who admits on the article talk page that he is a member of the band, and written like promotional original research. Current sources are a blog interview with a band member, and a Discogs listing proving that the albums exist. They have an AllMusic biography [15], but even if quoted in its entirety, it would only provide the stubbiest of permastubs: it's three lines long, one of which lists the band members, and another of which describes the band's music as "derivative and uninspired", so it can't be used as an objective description of the band for a Wikipedia biography. The only mentions of the band that I can find in back issues of Billboard are a passing mention in a list of Capitol Records' new signings [16] and another one-line passing mention that they were on tour as a support act [17]. Absolutely no clue whatsoever given in the text of the supposed association with Guns n' Roses. By the article creator's own admission the band went absolutely nowhere. Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything that meets WP:BAND. The album was released by a major label but I couldn't find any coverage of it, though of course this was a pre-internet era. Unless anything else turns up, I can't see how this meets the guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 12:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack Your Brand[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources: [18],[19], both from Dagens industri. --Hegvald (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're both interviews and fail WP:IRS. Praxidicae (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that all the sources are passing mentions, interviews or otherwise not independent, in depth coverage. Also WP:ARTSPAM. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 23 March 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 Internal fixation. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osteosynthesis[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this is a mistranslation of the German 'osteosynthese'. (e.g. Google "Osteosynthesis" and all the top results are from Germanophone sites or authors.) The correct translation is internal fixation (though it can also include reduction). Slightly off-topic, but I'm coming across of lot of life sciences material which looks like it's been badly translated from the German lately. Is there a way of encouraging people not to do this? JA Translator (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to internal fixation. Duplicate topic. On your second point, I'm not sure of a good way to discourage bad translations, but when I come across duplicate articles and one clearly in inferior, I often just "boldly" redirect. Natureium (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this seems to be a literal translation gone awry; topic already has an article under its commonly used name. - If anything, we can probably expect an uptick of such instances in the future, as WMF has just enabled Google Translate in the content translation tool. Hooray. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:26, 19 March 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. Sandstein 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hroswitha Club[edit]

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

The New York club the article is written about is not notable - it lacks the sort of coverage, even for a historical organization, that suggests notability with most coverage being passing, at best. There does appear to be a possibly notable club that operated out of the Princeton University Library with this name. Suggest redirect to either Princeton University Library with redirect with possibilities tag or to Hrotsvitha whom both of these clubs are named after. Best, (talk)Barkeep49 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect attribution: (talk)Barkeep49 I agree that this article is a stub, and expected that tag to apply automatically by bot in the crawl - if you can add that, please do so! Your assertion that the Club in NY is not notable and/or is formally affiliated with Princeton is incorrect. I concur that multiple citations can be added, including contemporary ones in press that can be accessed, and wikilinks to support notability. However thank you for mentioning it as now there is ephemera there to be linked to describing one of the club's visits and a membership roster. There is already an inline link to the Hrosvitha page which cites the Hroswitha Club having been named so under Contemporary References. This article expands on that reference. The citations to the Grolier Club indicate that there are Finding Aids available with a full description of notable members and history of the club. However since those are java based search responses, I used the base URL rather than a link that I suspected would not work, as some active links to records (see Grolier Club citation) go to a firewall page instead of the library search module. Will test and see, when I next add another citation. Thanks! noranoodle (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did look at all of your sources. In addition I looked for other sourcing which is how I came across the Princeton group with the same name (and for which the sourcing seems stronger). If it's decided to redirect to Groiler Club that too makes sense though I think it's less noted than the Princeton group which is why I didn't originally suggest it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution to operating out of Princeton University Library is incorrect as is the attribution and suggestion that it is a subset to be redirected to the Grolier Club, for which the wikilink is used. Please see the full history and description of the Club: ″Meetings were scheduled three to four times a year during the winter months and held at the homes of members as well as at major libraries and private collections, mainly in the northeast.″ [20] which I will add to the See Also. Best, noranoodle (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this club is "not notable" is inaccurate. They met over 200 times and included, as the page indicates, major figures like Belle de Costa Greene and host of important women book collectors and bibliographers whose work we are still trying to preserve in other Wikipedia articles. Many of these women were part of the social elite in New York. It makes much more sense to say we need to expand this article than it need to be deleted. The Princeton citation is inaccurate, and rolling it into a subset of the Grolier Club without acknowledging its own history would be a disservice. It would be like citing the seven sisters universities as subsets to the male university system that spawned them. It is logical and okay to suggest this stub needs to be expanded. But to say that an elite women's historical society with a legacy of 200 meetings and 50 years is "not notable" is bizarre. Please read the sources again. This should absolutely not be deleted. Punkandpoetess (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This appears to be a club of considerable historic interest. It could no doubt be further expanded but should not be deleted as current sources are adequate.--Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ipigott. Seems to be an important, if niche, part of women's literary history; exactly the sort of thing you'd hope wikipedia would illuminate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a couple of references and I think this meets WP:CLUB, per others above. Tacyarg (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while I can see there's room for debate about the meaning of 'significant', it seems to me that the article meets the general notability criterion that the club has 'received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. I see no reason why we shouldn't give the article the benefit of the doubt. Alarichall (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN Keep. Two editors have improved sourcing during this discussion. Meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 21 March 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. A redirect can still be editorially created. Sandstein 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Y-League Boys Central Division[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a presumably-former division of a youth soccer league. I was unable to find any significant coverage on this topic or any sources at all to verify its existence (WP:DEL7). BLAIXX 12:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Y League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I don't see the point of leaving behind a redirect as it is unlikely that anyone will enter that exact search term. The article averaged less than 1 pageview per day since 2018 and anyone typing "Super Y-League..." into the search box will see Super Y League as the top result. BLAIXX 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree no redirect is needed. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 20 March 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 deleted by Guettarda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Medicine Approach to Birth Control[edit]

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

Seems to just be an essay- pages on Birth control already exist CoconutOctopus talk 12:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of a copyvio to speedy delete, but the ESSAY problems are serious enough to. I'll let the instructor know and delete it as a copyvio. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:15, 18 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tati Westbrook[edit]

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

Non notable YouTuber and not notable for her acting career either. Fails nactor/youtube, possibly just too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of satisfying any of the notability guidelines. (Two of the references are IMDb and the other is a clearly promotional page, as well as being on a website that is doubtfully reliable.) Breaking sticks (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How is Tati not notable? She has over 5.5mil followers? Many of whom I'm sure would like to see her on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.187.250 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did use subscriber count to establish notability, in the world of YouTubers, 5million is pretty much just a drop in the bucket. She's not even in the top 50. Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Since when is 5 MILLION subs a 'drop in the bucket'? According to Socialblade just over 1000 channels including YT official channels (music, gaming etc) have over 5Mil subs. That is 1000 people/companies in the entire world of 7 billion people. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Where can the exact notability guidelines for this article be found, in plain english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.187.250 (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments seem to be variations on WP:JNN, more discussion and evaluation of sources required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is trivial and non-significant. Fails WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:43, 25 March 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 Diego Verdaguer. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Pasadiscos[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Article was nominated for speedy deletion on 3 May 2009; this was declined with the comment "removed speedy, added ref, this song might not be notable, but the singer, Diego Verdaguer passes WP:BIO". So, the song is not notable! The only reference given in the article is to a recording of the song by another artist. I have been unable to find any coverage that suggests this deserves its own article; it certainly does not have one in the Spanish language Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails our notability requirements. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diego Verdaguer. His article is poorly referenced at present, but there's no doubt Mr. Verdaguer is notable: he has charted on various Billboard charts [21], he has been nominated three times for Latin Grammy awards, most recently in 2015 [22] and has been commercially successful both in Mexico and within the Latin community in the US [23], and been profiled in other articles [24]. The song was a hit within the Latin community, although it appears to have been released in 1978, not 1976 as stated in the article [25]. But the Ortiz-Mexico chart used in Billboard has never been considered an official Mexican chart, as far as I know, and in the absence of more printed sources, a redirect to the artist seems valid, particularly as the song's parent album was also called El Pasadiscos. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no evidence of notability for this song, beyond its basic existence as listed in a few trivia sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 10:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bokani Leeto[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL have never played in a fully pro league or senior international football. WP:GNG is failed due to an utter lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL - not notable footballer. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about non-notable, semi-pro footballer. Online coverage is routine and fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG - and media in Botswana is mainly English, so you'd expect coverage in English. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Planet Media[edit]

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

No evidence of notability provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. trivial per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:CORP. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Nibler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only significant coverage comes from bio pages connected to the subject. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Collicott[edit]

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

A director/screenwriter with just one film. He has not done anything since 2009 either it appears. So either a delete or a redirect to the said film he did. Wgolf (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:01, 18 March 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 consensus is she notable also outside of the college scandal. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Jade[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not sure this person is notable beyond the scandal about her parents, otherwise this seems largely a hit page. Regardless, if she is notable, which I don't think she is from the fact she isn't notable outside of what her parents did, this should be substantially cut down to eliminate BLP issues. Isingness (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Social media celebrity and spokesperson for Amazon. YouTube channel that, by February 2018, had more than a million followers. Instagram account which also accumulated more than a million followers. Commercial endorsements for Amazon, SmileDirectClub, and other companies. Coverage from 2018 and 2017 (i.e., not this year) from Today, W Magazine, AOL, Yahoo News, Yahoo (separately). Plus, then you have the massive coverage from this year, which is for entirely separate causes. Clearly meets WP:GNG. * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Social media celebrity and spokesperson for Amazon. YouTube channel that, by February 2018, had more than a million followers. Instagram account which also accumulated more than a million followers. Commercial endorsements for Amazon, SmileDirectClub, and other companies. Coverage from 2018 and 2017 (i.e., not this year) from Today, W Magazine, AOL, Yahoo News, Yahoo (separately). Plus, then you have the massive coverage from this year, which is for entirely separate causes. Clearly meets WP:GNG.

XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject of article has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which predates the current scandal.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] WP:BLP1E is crested. Chetsford (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lou, Shane (February 17, 2018). "Lori Loughlin's daughter shares the downside of growing up with 2 famous parents". Today. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
^ Eckardt, Stephanie (January 11, 2018). "Lori Loughlin's Teen Daughters Have Nearly a Million Instagram Followers". W Magazine. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
^ "Lori Loughlin's YouTube star daughter sparks major controversy for car crash video". AOL. AOL. Retrieved August 7, 2017.
^ Justich, Kerry (August 17, 2018). "Celebrity kid called 'spoiled' and 'privileged brat' after saying she's going to college for 'game days' and 'partying'". Yahoo!. Retrieved March 14, 2019.

Comment – I was under the impression that this article had already existed prior to the scandal, but I see now that it was created in the wake of the coverage about it. I think it is debatable either way. There is a large amount of coverage from earlier than March 2019... very weak keep. - Paul^T+/_C 14:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Lori Loughlin, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic comments related to college scam

It is crucial for the American citizenry to understand what takes place in colleges and universities throughout the country. The privilege of being wealthy, the “pay to play” scheme, must be exposed for further investigation and analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:100:A92E:6DD6:C7A:9DE0:6500 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the article? if the information is accurate, the rich and famous should not have more extra benefits!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.213.235 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very extensive recent coverage in WP:RS, coupled with past coverage (over the past four years) in reliable publications means she is notable. Examples prior to current coverage:

Wired, March 2018 YouTube and Pinterest Influencers Almost Never Disclose Marketing Relationships
People, October 2017: Beauty Influencer Olivia Jade Says Mom Lori Loughlin Keeps Telling Her 'Less Is More
W Magazine, January 2018: Lori Loughlin's Teen Daughters Have Nearly a Million Instagram Followers
Today.com, July 2015: Lori Loughlin's teenage daughter Olivia is her mini-me — see the cute photos
Refinery29.com, January 2017: Full House's Aunt Becky Is The Real Life Mom Of A Beauty Vlogger
Yahoo news, August 2018: Celebrity kid called 'spoiled' and 'privileged brat' after saying she's going to college for 'game days' and 'partying
ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the fact that the content of the page was created out of necessity because a redirect wasn’t doing it justice, and how I couldn’t care less about this scandal, she has significant coverage dating back months. It’s not about what’s in the sources it’s that they’re there (I hate that policy but that’s the policy). Article simply needs to be rewritten entirely. Trillfendi (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree above that this page needs to be rewritten. This young girl is definitely notable even outside of the scandal. Millions of followers on social media, a speaker for Amazon, etc. Tinton5 (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is mean-spirited and exists solely to embarrass its subject. It's full of tabloid-worthy innuendo and lots of gossip vaguely related to a court case where the subject isn't charged with any wrongdoing. The editors who have permission to edit the article aren't taking sufficient steps to fix it, therefore the article should not exist. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia.
"The article is mean-spirited" - While it's true the biography principally consists of information that reflects poorly on its subject, this is simply the reality of either (a) her life, or, (b) how WP:RS choose to frame and report on her life. WP reflects how people are presented in RS, not how we wish they were presented. She may spend every weekend feeding cotton candy to homeless kittens, but we are limited to chronicling those of her biographical moments that receive WP:SIGCOV in RS.
"editors who have permission to edit the article aren't taking sufficient steps to fix it" - How do you think it should be "fixed"? If you mean accurate and reliably sourced information should be purged, we don't really do that here.
Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind welcome. To your second point, one example would be the article's statement that "Olivia Jade was confused about how to fill out a university application." Her alleged confusion was about filling out an app under the special circumstances arranged by her consultant and parents. Wikipedia's discussion of this is meant to be insulting, and is misleading without context. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to suggest that edit on the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to read WP:NOTCLEANUP, if the sources are reliable then we go by them. If the reliable sources are slanted towards one viewpoint, we balance it with the opposing viewpoint using other reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the article section about the game show. I read the item you linked me to, and I believe your Biographies of Living People policy overrides it. This girl is getting a lot of online harassment over the indictment, including in the last section of this article, which is just a list of tawdry non-stories strung together to swipe at the girl. Is there really encyclopedic value in her being on a boat with friends whose parents work for USC at the time the indictment was released? LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need work to create a neutral view, and to be less of a 'hit piece', as you say. However, as was widely reported, her family allegedly fraudulently acquired admission for her to USC. The fact that she was on the boat of the chairman of the USC board at the time of the indictment is plainly part of that story, and was widely reported in numerous reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about what her family did, not what she did. Facts still need to come out, but it's fully plausible that she is a victim here. I suppose we will disagree about the boat story, which only proved she had befriended someone with a highly placed parent. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage has been found on the subject to meet WP:BASIC. The other option would be to merge the info into Lori Loughlin as there is no questioning the notability under that context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThatMontrealIP.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject meets WP:BASIC at the very least. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Help me understand how BASIC (a guideline) trumps BLP (a policy) and all of its subparts, including BLPGOSSIP? LetsGoSurfing (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a content guideline, not an inclusion guideline. It has a lot of influence over what we put in articles about living people; it has a lot less to say about whether we have those articles to begin with. The threshold question here isn't whether having an article about her would itself be a BLP violation, as articles cannot by themselves, by their very existence, violate BLP. It's whether she is notable independent of the recent arrest of her parents for what they allegedly did to get her into college.

And, as I just !voted below, I think she is. She had gotten some coverage as an influencer before this (I agree that having famous parents didn't hurt that, but that is a decision beyond the reach of Wikipedia inclusion policy). The issue after this AfD is closed as keep (which it seems to be heading for) is for us as a community to write and edit the article in strict conformance with policies like WP:UNDUE, WP:RS (which it seems we are at the moment, from my look at the citations) and, yes, BLP.

The community consensus has been that the likelihood that an article will be vandalized, be frequently edited to attack a living person or used as a pretext for going off on tangents is not considered a sufficient rationale for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP is a content guideline." No it isn't. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: Per WP:BLPDELETE: "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability) ..." (emphasis mine). To me that means that notability is a separate question, especially because the section goes on to say that poorly sourced or unsourced attack pages on living persons can be deleted on those grounds but only if the idea is to start from scratch after deletion.

WP:BLP1E is the only sub-BLP policy that explicitly addresses inclusion, and while I think you did try to bring it up earlier the consensus is clearly that that does not apply here, and it seems like you've understandably dropped it.

And as for "No it isn't", while a contradiction can sometimes be an argument all by itself, usually it isn't. To convince me that you're right, you'll need to explain why you think I'm wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't break your arm patting me on the head. You called BLP a guideline, it's a policy. Since we disagree about that, we have nothing else to discuss. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: OK, you're right, I did say "guideline". I correct that error retroactively. But that changes nothing else. I still await your explanation as to why everything else I said was wrong.

And while you're at this task of yours, I commend WP:BLUDGEON to your attention. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she's independently notable as an influencer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking as an early contributor to WP:BLP policy, it seems to meet our expectations of a person who has (1) sought public notoriety (made her living as an "influencer" with the exposure level akin to a member of congress), and (2) actively participated in a scandal by taking pictures purportedly falsely showing herself to be involved in crew, and (3) knowingly participated in game show fraud. This is not a victim. It's copiously sourced, although some are tabloid gossip. But tabloid gossip is her source of income. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a victim." That's certainly the conclusion one would glean from reading the article, but your second and third points are purely a product of this woman's trial via internet, where an accusation is tantamount to guilt. Is that how Wikipedia works too? To your first point, there was no article until the scandal. This article is a product of a pitchfork wielding mob, not responsible and neutral reporting. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: "[T]here was no article until the scandal." The timing of an article's creation has no bearing on BLP's relevance here, unless, as I've noted above, you are arguing that this comes under BLP1E, which you seem to have prudently stopped doing. Many times we have only started articles on people who had met our notability criteria for a long time prior to an event, usually not related to their notability, that thrust them further into the spotlight.

Usually, alas, it is their deaths. After the Valhalla train crash, for instance, we came to realize that two of the six victims, Robert Dirks and Walter Liedtke, were notable, and we started articles on them. More recently, we didn't have articles on some Nobel Prize-winning scientists until they won their prizes, scientists who would have met our notability standards before except for no one having taken the time to create them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (belatedly signing)[reply]

Keep Independently notable and a public figure outside of the college scandal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of things wrong with this article but the solution is to fix them. Deleting seems overkill. My arguments (which I think match WP policy or at least don't contradict it.) 1) Clearly in the public interest. Or maybe I meant the public is clearly interested. 2) Plenty of previous web presence because of her blogging. Seems to make money from it. I guess the new termonology is influencer. 3) Being notorious because of a scandal is not listed as one of the reasons for deletion. The reason for being well known seems irrelevent. This is a public figure people will want to know about. The page should exist. (Apologies for not understanding and using formal WP terminology.)Zencuke (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olivia has plenty of notability outside of the scandal – to the point where there is WP:UNDUE weight on the scandal (it's two thirds of the article, we shouldn't slant it towards recent events). @LetsGoSurfing: You are correct that BLP is a policy. However, BLP is not itself grounds for deletion when the issues can be easily fixed, and the substance of Daniel's argument still applies. That the article was created only during the scandal is a pure red herring; just because she happened to get enough attention from someone willing to create an article does not at all affect her notability. I invite you to be WP:BOLD and edit the article to address the due weight and BLP issues, and I am sure you will easily find others willing to help you. But we are not going to delete an article just because it has a problem that can be fixed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "Keep and Fix" voters are doing much to actually fix the article. If you aren't going to fix it, if has to be deleted. Every second this tripe remains up, a real person is affected. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: No, not at all. We all have limited time and (perhaps more importantly) limited knowledge about this area. Since you seem more concerned about it, why don't you go ahead and fix it? You seem to know the relevant policies, after all. The actions of the editors here is another red herring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My existing activity on the article's talk page seems to have escaped your attention. Regardless, your suggestion is Orwellian. I'm not the one voting to keep this. You're the one saying it will be fixed. Stand behind your words and fix it. It's not enough to assume someone else will clean up your mess, Keep voters. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: "your mess" – wrong. The great majority of keep !voters (including me; why the !: this is not a vote) had no involvement in making this article. Casting aspersions of "orwellian" does your argument no favors. Wikipedia is built by volunteers like you, with emphasis on "volunteer". At this point, there is basically zero chance that consensus will be for deletion, so this is the outcome regardless.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a volunteer does not absolve one of responsibility for their choices and acts. The Keep voters are accountable for the continued retention of this terrible article. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: Yes, we are responsible for keeping the article, but not its current content, nor inhibiting an overhaul. I am not sure if you noticed, but I did remove a poorly-sourced assertion here. Instead of pointing fingers, you should look for specific, concrete ways to improve the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My existing activity on the article's talk page seems to have escaped your attention. Regardless, your suggestion is Orwellian. I'm not the one voting to keep this. You're the one saying it will be fixed. Stand behind your words and fix it. It's not enough to assume someone else will clean up your mess, Keep voters. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy - the question of Delete/Keep is separate from the question of quality. The most salacious article in the world will be kept if it's about something notable. Similarly, the most well-written and meticulously referenced article on WP will be deleted if it's about something that's not notable. Whether or not that's fair, that's how it is. You can make suggestions to change WP policies, however, at WP:VP. Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LetsGoSurfing: I saw it. But you haven't edited the article itself. Don't be afraid to! I never promised that I myself would fix it, nor that any other particular person would, so don't put words in my mouth. On Wikipedia, the fundamental premise is that articles are built by volunteers. So this article will be fixed by volunteers. Either do so yourself, or be patient. With that claim removed, I don't see any outrageously false information in it since it seems well-grounded in sources – the problem of recentism is separate from verifiability. Calling my suggestion "orwellian", on the other hand, is not true. This has no relation to Animal Farm or any of his other works, nor its themes. Rehashing your viewpoint will do nothing, zero, to convince everyone else. You're wasting your breath when you could be spending this time fixing this article. I'm not going to continue debating it; I was replying for your benefit, so you could better understand how Wikipedia works. But it's clear that it's a waste of time to try to educate you on that, at least for me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doublethink. In parting, I sincerely thank you for adding the "recentism" tag to the article. That's more than most of the Keep voters have done to try to help. LetsGoSurfing (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In parting, I sincerely thank you for adding the "recentism" tag to the article. That's more than most of the Keep voters have done to try to help." Or, indeed, the Delete !voters too, apparently. Chetsford (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is well established. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 24 March 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt[edit]

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

Since creation in June 2005 this article has been unsourced. Though there are references to this organisation's work, I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS of the organisation itself. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've updated the article. A few minutes of searching showed that CADTM's reports are found to be useful in the alterglobalisation movement press in the English language, and at least one of its reports was accepted as a submission by the OHCHR - effectively putting CADTM in the same group of organisations as the International Bar Association and the International Trade Union Confederation. Under WP:NGO I don't see any reason for deletion. Boud (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources look fine now. Mccapra (talk) 07:29, 18 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saikat Chakrabarti[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have independent notability; article is more or less a WP:COATRACK for claims which more properly belong in an article about his employer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and no sustained coverage. A few early history and personal details doesn't conceal the article - in its current form - as a WP:COATRACK. This guy is completely unnotable otherwise. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This nom is out of process. There is an active merge discussion at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#Proposed merge with Saikat Chakrabarti.* To be clear, I agree with the nom's sentiment, but merger is a preferable alternative to deletion and the chief of staff is a useful redirect for his mentions at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. czar 21:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(*Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 5#Proposed merge with Saikat Chakrabarti.) – Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as independent article. Chakrabarti is Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff but is also his own individual. What he says is expected to reflect her opinion, but that doesn't mean he cannot independently express his opinion when it vibes with her opinion anyway. This is an objectively edited, well-sourced article that meets all standalone Wikipedia criteria. It also describes in detail Chakrabarti's own personal life and career and appropriately cites and sources his pedigree and accomplishments. I don't believe it is correct to merge all of this content into AOC's campaign article or AOC' personal article. Castncoot (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Repeating what I said in the AOC talk page; Nom apparently doesn't google too well. I'll point out, I never heard of this guy until I saw this thread. First he was the technology director for Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign. It was the technological support that caused that campaign to start to take off, but he didn't get well publicized about it. Second he was founder of Brand New Congress.[26] That is significant and much more of a notable achievement. Prior to working for Ocasio-Cortez. after graduating Harvard, as a software developer, he worked at Apple, was a founding engineer that developed Stripe, and created Mockingbird (gomockingbird.com).[27], [28] You can see in the Washington Post article, this is coming from background around campaign finance issues [29] [30] pushed by the right, where his name comes up. A developing story, I'll avoid characterizing the campaign finance stuff until I read up on it. It sure looks like the dealings of Chakrabarti will be coming up more often. His independent actions are being discussed, as are those of Manafort and Cohen, independent of the political figure who is the front person for the controversy. Additionally, he is treated as the "brains behind Ocasio-Cortez."[31], he is getting interviewed as such.[32], [33] We have articles on powerful aides; Huma Abedin for example. It would be wise of wikipedia to provide background on this name in the news.[34] Yes, it is a WP:BLP so then we have to watch that article to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack for garbage about him or other subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge – I don't understand the procedural effect of simultaneous AfD and merger discussions, but Chak isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. It should be a redirect to AOC. There isn't enough SIGCOV with him as the subject. He is in the media a lot as a spokesperson for some other organization or person (e.g., a PAC, AOC), but notability is not inherited, and I can't find now the link to whatever page talks about spokespeople not being notable if they're only speaking on behalf of someone else. As far as the campaign finance issue goes, that seems to be WP:BLP1E. All the coverage of the campaign finance focuses on AOC and the PACs, and only briefly mentions him (because he is named in the complaint). He fails WP:GNG and thus shouldn't have a stand-alone article. That may change in the future, of course, but for now, it should be a redirect (or deleted). Leviv ich 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept quote was from June, from his activities operating Justice Democrats long before he became her CoS. Several of the Indian articles were presented a month before the campaign finance Fox News stuff. The New Yorker article quoting him on the Green New Deal was also in January. Detonate your BLP1E. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "1E" is being "the brains behind AOC". All the coverage is about that. So, Justice Democrats was her PAC. The Green New Deal is her policy proposal. Every time he's in the news, he's talking about either working for AOC as COS, or, before that, working to get AOC elected. Leviv ich 14:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, fails WP:BIO / WP:BIO1E for now; most coverage only mentions him in passing and is unsuitable to demonstrate notability, and the only non-trivial coverage focuses on a single event, which has no indication that it has or will receive any sustained coverage. Strongly oppose both keep and merge options - no content on this page is usable outside of the sentence that has already been added to the main AOC article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well-reasoned arguments by Castncoot and Trackinfo (and do not merge). Chakrabarti was independently notable before the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. Though his notability now may seem dim in the bright light of O-C media coverage, Wikipedia is not news (policy). That fewer knew of him last year than now isn't actually an encyclopedic criterion. – Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He is notable enough for that, but not for a standalone article at this point. His "coverage" before the election of Ocasio-Cortez was pretty much nonexistent. It increased slightly when he became her chief of staff, as a mention in articles about her. The current high level of scrutiny is caused by his being accused of campaign violations - a classic case of NOTNEWS. I argue for redirect because that maintains the history in case he later meets GNG and qualifies for a full article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having been down this road before, when an article is redirected and merged, that cuts off the ability to edit the article with future developments. It also stands as a major impediment to taking the article back mainspace. With a weak consensus declared in hand, one editor with an agenda can keep it bottled up until it is re-litigated on an obscure talk page which is watched by those with the same agenda. This guy has had his high profile job for barely two months. Do you think that possibly in the next 22 months, particularly with the garbage story currently being pushed, he might have more content written about HIM? A bad decision here will certainly keep this future content away from public view. And that will be the agenda. Without a neutral wikipedia article, the interested public will google and find the sources we have already, and the ever expanding array of right wing character assassination pieces that are already up there. Trackinfo (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation which has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and does not match with my experience. Expanding a redirected article is easy. Keeping an article about a subject who does not meet GNG, on the theory that he will later so we should have an article about him now, is counter to our philosophy and policy. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for redirect because that maintains the history in case he later meets GNG and qualifies for a full article. You obviously have not tried to revive an article that was once redirected, which is what you suggested we could do in the future. And when this article was NOMed, the NOM only was able to find Politico and Fox news sources, or actually that was the merger guy. This guy didn't try at all. WP:BEFORE. We are now at 17 sources, many sources, particularly the Indian sources, are taking about HIM. Do you still think he doesn't meet GNG? Are your fingers in your ears? Are you humming loud enough? Trackinfo (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, please be polite. And please read my previous comments about the sources, directly below this conversation if you had noticed, where I point out that every source in the article was written after his successful connection with AOC brought him to public attention, and that all information about his previous activities is from those recent, AOC-related articles. He did not meet GNG prior to that, and his current publicity could be considered WP:BLP1E. He may well become more notable as time goes on, and yes, I have often seen or participated in the expansion of articles from a redirect - even a redirect that resulted from an AfD. The requirements are the same as those at WP:G4 - namely, that the expanded article not be substantially identical to the original article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 17 sources currently in the article, 14 name AOC in the headline, one is the Politico article that is all about his work for AOC, and the remaining two are brief reports that he was featured by Politico. There is an objective lack of SIGCOV covering him independently of his boss. Leviv ich 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I invite everyone who is arguing KEEP to take a look a the sources in this article. The references are very badly sourced, mostly with bare urls, but if you take the trouble to check them you will find that every single one was written in the last six months and is primarily about his connection to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. He had done a number of things up to that point, which people are touting as giving him notability. But the descriptions of his previous exploits are all sourced to articles written in the last few months, in flashback. Apparently none of his previous activities had gotten him any contemporaneous significant coverage from reliable sources. It is only his connection with AOC that gets him press now. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use bare urls, virtually exclusively. User:Trackinfo#Link rot, I have yet to have ANYONE show me how all the link formatting helps make a source more or less reliable, or prevents it from going away at the will of the copyright holder or website. Its giant B.S. Trackinfo (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, that is selfish of you and results in greatly inferior articles from the reader's point of view. (After all Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the readers, not for the convenience of editors.) The reason for including the full citation is so that readers can quickly and easily evaluate a citation - in particular: where is it from? when was it written? and what is its headline? Your complaints in your essay, about all the terrible long hard work it takes to do a full citation, are misplaced. There are numerous scripts and helpers available here that make citation easy. Personally I don't use a script, I use the "cite" button right here at the edit window, and it takes me about 30 seconds to insert a reference. IMO full references are so important to an article that I often expand bare-url references when I see them. If this article is kept I will probably expand its references. While grumbling about you not doing it in the first place. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: This* is a collaborative project. I'm the editor who added full {{cite web}} format for the references other editors had supplied. I didn't complain about doing the work, why should you? – Athaenara ✉ 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (By "this*" I mean the encyclopedia. – Athaenara ✉ 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yes, I just noticed that and was just about to thank you for it. Trackinfo should thank you too, but probably won't. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owes me thanks for normal encyclopedic editing. – Athaenara ✉ 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN I do not use the cite web format because it is a useless function that takes up unnecessary time and bandwidth. It makes it HARDER to find information. It makes it HARDER to even locate where you are making an edit. I'm not lazy, its a statement. It doesn't improve or hinder the credibility of a source, as you were trying to intimate. Bare urls clearly indicate where the information comes from. If its not at the top, if you were to do a word search for something like "Chakrabarti," and such a common word it is, you'd be taken directly to the passages where the article is talking about the subject. If other editors, like Athaenara, find it necessary, they can click through the process every hundred or so edits to an active article and your problem is solved. I do thank Athaenara and every editor who makes a positive contribution to wikipedia, each in their own way. That is why I am here too. Trackinfo (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow smh. One has to click on a URL to find out, e.g., who wrote it, when it was written, who published it, and the title of the work. So you're making readers click on each and every reference to get that information instead of being able to read it on the page. In articles with 300 references, how would that work for our reader? It's a jaw dropping "statement" you're making. Leviv ich 17:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:GNG. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. Leviv ich 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: @Levivich: If you'd read the sources you'd understand that Ocasio-Cortez wouldn't even be in office if it were not for the work of Chakrabarti and the PACs he co-founded. You asked. – Athaenara ✉ 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: @Levivich: Furthermore, by that logic, Ted Sorensen, McGeorge Bundy, Larry O'Brien, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Pierre Salinger, Maxwell Taylor, and Averell Harriman should just redirect to John F. Kennedy. Ocasio-Cortez is no JFK, but Chakrabarti isn't a nobody, either. If anybody rode in on anybody's coattails, she rode in on his. – Athaenara ✉ 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, I agree with you, but that's not what I asked. (Also, that only reinforces that all he is known for is AOC, and thus his notability is inherited, not inherent.) What I asked is: what are the top three examples of significant coverage of Chak in reliable independent secondary sources? It's not enough to assert his notability, it must be demonstrated with WP:SIGCOV. Let's see if the SIGCOV withstands scrutiny. Leviv ich 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I read all of the sources during the few hours when I was, off and on (it's tedious), formating citations added by other editors. I recommend you read them as well. – Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, so two things: First, suggesting that I haven't read the sources is an ad hominem attack that might convince people I'm an idiot but it won't convince anyone to keep the Chak article. Second, the more I say, "post the three best sources", and the more you say stuff without posting any sources, the more you make my point: any potential source you post will be about AOC or Brand New Congress, not about Chak, except maybe for one. We both know that's true, and we both know that's what separates Chak from Schlesinger and all the rest of the examples above. So I humbly say: if there's GNG, post the best three. I'm making the "put up or shut up" challenge. It's up to you if you want to take it on. Leviv ich 19:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not responding to any commands. I spoke my piece, and left in peace. – Athaenara ✉ 19:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention at main article, if not already mentioned. Not independently notable; being mentioned in an article is not evidence of notability, nor is being on the Playboy politico list of whatever. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: That's the Politico Playbook (nothing to do with Playboy). – Athaenara ✉ 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Oppose Merge This person is had significant coverage in the Washington Post, Politico, and other national media. He may be "only" CoS for AOC currently, but has been a Washington power player and an important campaign finance person --rogerd (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oppose Merge mostly as per Trackinfo. The subject of this article is notable beyond his involvement with AOC. Also, really bad form to start an AFD, just an hour after a merge discussion was started. I guess I have comment there too since both are active. At the very least, the person nominating this for deletion could have mentioned the active merge discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge he is separately notable, and his past positions (as " Justice Democrats executive director and former director of organizing technology for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign"[35] and "Brand New Congress co-founder"[36] are informative to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment. He seems to be notable 'only' as her chief of staff. Not an independently notable person who would deserve a separate page. Also agree with arguments by MelanieN. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added eight new sources covering his time before the victory of Ocasio-Cortez. His one on one interview with Rachel Maddow was more than two years before the Ocasio-Cortez primary win. There is also coverage of his later one on one interview on The Young Turks, still more than a year before the primary. The Ozy article puts him in the powerbroker role to select Ocasio-Cortez as a candidate. Trackinfo (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe. I do not watch US politics very closely. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge - Subject has significant coverage and it serves our readers to keep the entry to help people understand the world around them - the encyclopedic mission. -- econterms (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge rare to see notable staffers, but not unprecedented (i.e. Amrish Tyagi). nominator might well consider, they would not want to be this editor, or this editor. -- Peavyeavy (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC) This editor has been CU blocked as a sock. Their !vote has been stricken. Leviv ich 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:GNG. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. User:Levivich 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd be curious to see this too. There's been little talk of choice sourcing from those who oppose merger. There was the Politico mini-feature, the few paragraphs in the New Yorker, and what other "best source" did I not see that wasn't an incidental mention? czar 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge per the work of Trackinfo. The subject has been covered by RS and does not fall under 1E. Davey2116 (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to request for three examples of significant coverage. Here are some of the sources: (1) The Kozub (2017) piece interviews Chakrabarti as a central figure in a new left/techy political movement as he was executive director of an organization and had been a manager in the Bernie Sanders campaign; it refers to a new technology they "pioneered". Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned. (2) The Hough (2017) piece is also an interview with Chakrabarti and has his name in the title. Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned. There is some emphasis on his background as a small tech company founder and more on the Sanders campaign. (3) The 2016 interview by Rachel Maddow, of him alone, about the Sanders campaign. Maddow's show is huge. Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned. (4) Shaw's (2019, Fox) piece is about him although his role is in the headline, not his name. It mentions his background and a potential/incipient scandal and characterizes the scandal and him as being "in the headlines"; (5) The Politico (2019) piece should clear any notability hurdle as he is characterized in a list as one of the most influential "behind the scenes players" in America politics. If I have to pick exactly three examples of significant coverage, I pick Kozub's, Maddow's, and Politico's. The case would be weaker if I had to pick three that didn't mention Ocasio-Cortez but the first three might clear the bar. -- econterms (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hough (#2, Inquisitr) is an unreliable source. And that Chakrabarti appeared on Maddow (video-only, no text) puts him alongside hundreds of pundits—not in itself a sign of independent notability, as only usable as a self-published ref. The Shaw (Fox News) article is about the AOC campaign, though it does roundup some extra detail from right-leaning press. I suppose this makes Kozub the "third source", but I'd argue that it doesn't offer us much on Chakrabarti himself if we're looking to write an encyclopedic biography that does justice to the subject. I don't think anyone is sincerely arguing for "deletion" here but if the coverage of Chakrabarti is not specific to him as a figure (instead about his organizational affiliations) then we'd be looking at a tasteful merger. czar 01:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll study Inquisitr and WP:SPS and reflect on the quality of those sources. They seemed fine but I didn't know they didn't meet guidelines. -- econterms (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I struggle to understand the motivation and thinking of the deletionist advocates here. This looks like a snow keep case to me because it has lots of sources, and is helpful to readers. (I don't remember knowing about this person till I read it yesterday, and it's been helpful and illuminating.) One hypothesis is that many people think politicians, who got the actual votes, are the real players, and that staffers are nothings. But I've met a bunch of legislative staffers (not this one), and seen them interviewed and they are often brilliant, well-informed, non-partisan, and pretty expert on legislation. It is appropriate to illuminate the legislative process by covering them on Wikipedia. It's not just a paperwork matter of whether there are more than three, or five, sources for each one. Reading about such people illuminates the meaning and effect of a Tea Party movement or a Justice Democrats movement in legislation. They are analogous to top civil servants who often don't get coverage anywhere but they have to put procedural substance behind the top officials who have the microphones. In the cases when they get >3 sources, it makes sense to have an article about such people. -- econterms (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge - Subject is a notable figure in his own right. As for published sources mentioning him outside of his relationship with Congresswoman Cortez, here is an interview from two years ago of an interview of Mr Chakrabarti by Cenk Uygur on The Young Turks: Meet The Exec Director Of Justice Democrats Saikat Chakrabarti - YouTube -- Phersh (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I appreciate the work that many editors have put in trying to establish notability of the subject of this article. 26 references as of right now–but unfortunately, almost all of them still have "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" in the headline and not Chakrabarti. Looking at the best examples: the Politico profile is entirely about his work for Sanders, JD/BNC, and AOC (all of which is really the same employer, this is all Sanders' progeny), and it's not really very significant in length. Counting that as one example of significant coverage in an independent reliable source, we still need multiple such examples to meet WP:GNG. The Rachel Maddow interview doesn't count; it's entirely about Brand New Congress, it's not about Chak; he is only the spokesperson. Kozub/The Verge, and Shaw/Fox News, are both all about AOC and the PACs, and from marginal RSes. Inquistr is not an RS (news aggregator, not journalism). Everything else put forward is either a passing mention or from a non-reliable source. Look at his article right now: the sections are Bernie Sanders, Justice Democrats, AOC. Almost all of the content is about somebody other than Chakrabarti. We can't write a decent stand-alone article about him because he is not notable enough and we don't have the RSes to draw from. It's not about how many sources we can gather, but about their quality. And in this case, he is always treated as a "part of" the Bernie Sanders/AOC political machine. Barring multiple examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, his article should be merged and redirected. Leviv ich 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in Politico [37] and India Abroad [38] both focus on Chakkrabarti. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The India Abroad article has 7 paragraphs: 3 paragraphs are reprints of quotes from the Politico article; 2 paragraphs are reprints of quotes from the Rolling Stone article (about Justice Democrats, in which Chak was quoted); 1 paragraph quotes DC Beat; the remaining paragraph is two sentences summarizing his life before AOC. It does not seem that any actual journalism or reporting went into the writing of the India Abroad article. Politico still seems to be the only one, and even that one is marginal. Leviv ich 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not trying to be "cute" in analyzing the sources. The Politico article is 16 paragraphs. The headline has his name in it (not AOC's). The picture is a picture of him. The 16 paragraphs are all the product of original reporting and interviews–you can tell work went into the writing of this article. It's still all about his work for AOC, but in my view it's at least marginally significant coverage in an independent reliable source. I think that's charitably one for GNG, but all the others cited in our article or posted here fall well short of even a relaxed standard. Leviv ich 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that "almost all" of the headlines of the footnoted sources refer to AOC. It is utterly, thoroughly, and totally not the case that "Sanders, JD/BNC, and AOC" are the same employer. Chak's employment with the Sanders campaign-for-president would not even be the same usually as employment with the Sanders Senate office; AOC's office in the House of Representatives is very very very different legally and administratively from the Sanders campaign, it's a legislative office. Chak is one of the founders of Justice Democrats and also of Brand New Congress which are independently notable PACs by Wikipedia's definition. They are definitely distinct from political campaigns or legislative offices. It makes sense to say they are part of the same movement, but Sanders' "progeny" whether family or virtual/intellectual can be independently notable. JD and BNC have been judged independently notable for example. -- econterms (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do Sanders, JD, BNC, and AOC have in common that Chak doesn't? Notability, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For Chak, he has one such example: the Politico article. Still waiting for someone to produce a second one. So far, everything in our article, and everything posted here, hasn't been significant, independent, or in a reliable source, except for the one Politico article. In my view, AfD shouldn't be about the number of sources or the number of !keep votes; it's about quality, not quantity. Leviv ich 18:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG calls for in-depth coverage in multiple sources. It does not say the article or headline must not mention the person's more-famous employer, father, spouse, etc. -- that would set an impossibly high bar for many notable people who are closely associated with others more famous. The Rolling Stone article talks about Justice Democrats in the context of a long interview with Chakrabarti, describing his trajectory from Sanders campaign, his associates there, the motivation behind their creating Brand New Congress, and finally Justice Democrats. It is certainly in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. So is the Verge piece. So is the Politico piece. Maddow interviewed him about Brand New Congress--which he co-founded, and which was, as Maddow pointed out, a brand new idea. People are much more interested in AOC than they are in Chakrabarti. He still passes GNG, our relevant policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree having a more-famous employer does not disqualify a person as being notable. An example of this is Sarah Sanders, who is notable because of her employer. There was no wikipedia article for her before February 2017. -- Phersh (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Chakrabarti is being interviewed in an article about JD, then the article is about JD, not about Chakrabarti, and supports JD's notability, not Chakrabarti's. People aren't notable because they were interviewed by the media about something. Leviv ich 18:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: You claim "If Chakrabarti is being interviewed in an article about JD, then the article ..supports JD's notability, not Chakrabarti's." Please show me where in our policy it says that in-depth coverage must be an article ONLY about one single notable person. Nothing in GNG supports that claim. Rolling Stone interviewed Chakrabarti at length and in depth about his own career and achievements (Chakrabarti is a co-founder of JD and BNC, both notable organizations.) For people who are not porn stars or instagram models, "in-depth coverage" is coverage of their career and their achievements. You seem fond of WP:NOTINHERIT, which it is not policy but part of an essay about arguments to avoid. Speaking of arguments to avoid, "People aren't notable because they were interviewed by the media about something" is a straw man argument. Nobody here has been saying that. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Rolling Stone article is not significant coverage of Chakrabarti because:

The headline doesn't name Chakrabarti, it names Justice Democrats
The lead paragraphs don't mention Charkabarti
The lead photograph isn't a picture of Chakrabarti, it's a picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The article has two pictures of her, zero pictures of Chakrabarti.
The article is 19 paragraphs; only one sentence is about Chakrabarti exclusively. That sentence is: Chakrabarti was in tech, an early employee at a multibillion-dollar startup in the Bay Area, growing increasingly disillusioned with the industry. That's the only information in the article about Chakrabarti's background.
In every other instance in which the article gives information about Chakrabarti, it's in the context of him and the other two founders of Justice Democrats, and only about their founding of Justice Democrats: The three leaders of Justice Democrats — Chakrabarti, Alexandra Rojas and Corbin Trent — met back in 2015, when the only thing they had in common was the fact that they each dropped everything they were doing and went to work for Sanders not long after he declared his candidacy. ... Gradually, in early 2017, Rojas, Chakrabarti and Trent transitioned away from Brand New Congress and toward Justice Democrats. ...And that’s also what Rojas, Chakrabarti, Trent and Justice Democrats as a whole are turning their attention to: creating an entire system to support the candidates they’ve helped elect as they pursue these big, ambitious projects.
There are zero quotes from Chakrabarti about Chakrabarti. Every time he's quoted, he's talking about Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Justice Democrats, or something else.

I agree with what you wrote, that GNG requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. This Rolling Stone article doesn't even come close to being in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. He doesn't meet GNG because so far we only have one arguably in-depth source: Politico. Leviv ich 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I see him mentioned in political articles all the time. The election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is bound to have lasting consequences. It makes sense that someone greatly involved in that election would be notable too. Connor Behan (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone idk Mosaicberry (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: The consensus developed robustly here for 7-8 days toward a strong and unambiguous keep result: relisting the discussion was frivolous. – Athaenara ✉ 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Athaenara; no need to relist. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I registered my Keep vote early on, because I did my research, while the NOM failed to do an efficient WP:BEFORE. I used those sources, along with help from other editors, to improve the article and clearly refute the arguments of all but the most stubborn of dissenters. So lets review; We have been through this needless exercise because it was 1) nom is out of process, 2) (quoting myself) Nom apparently doesn't google too well and 3) While I hate the AfD process because it makes valuable content vulnerable, I does result in improvements to an article. I had never heard of this guy until this was brought up, first as a merge and then this AfD, now I know he is an important player in our current political situation; recent past, present and future. After those improvements to this article, we are now in a situation where; in the last 7 days there is but one lone dissenter against a barrage of 11 KEEPs I think our work is done here. WP:SNOW

The further moral to this story is whenever you see an AfD where a NOM says there is nothing to be found about this subject,

DO NOT TRUST THAT STATEMENT. Google it for yourself. While I think it should be obvious and it should be a requirement that all NOMs do a legitimate BEFORE, there is no enforcement. I think they should be penalized for making frivolous NOMs without one. Somehow, I seem to have a gift for finding sources those other people miss. I added 21 sources to this article (some were removed). Is it just me? I wish it isn't. We need more WP:Inclusionists to help save Wikipedia's valuable content, or articles like this could be disappeared by ill founded NOMs or worse, by people with bad intent. We all need to be vigilant. Help here. I will be willing to teach deep Google technique. Maybe I need to formulate an essay. I believe in collegiality. Please contact me through my talk page to learn, discuss or help. Trackinfo (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Thanks for your input. You didn't sign your first comment, and both your comments are indented so as to suggest they are replies to me - was that your intention? Airbornemihir (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended as a reply to you but to the entire subject at hand. I'm used to indenting after my initial comment where my !vote is registered. I further indented my "Moral to the story" so as not to take away from the emphasis that this AfD should already be closed. All of that really was just one long comment (as always with corrections). Trackinfo (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with User:Athaenara and User:Airbornemihir -- relisting didn't make sense. Trackinfo, okay yes I will sign up for Article Rescue; you are right. I have an immediate process question too. Isn't Relisting supposed to be done only by an admin? Eggroll97 doesn't appear to be an admin. I feel like the deletion-advocates here are doing something unusual, something that is not in good faith, wasting our time and energy. Is it appropriate to ask for help at Village pump or ANI or someplace? I might need to go to wikilaw school, after many years of trying to avoid conflict. We could just request an admin to close this, perhaps, which isn't a fight really. -- econterms (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to seem like an old tired hand but over a dozen years, I've seen this happen many times before. What you see happening here, especially below this comment, is called WP:Wikilawyering. There is a class of editors, WP:Deletionists who advocate deletion even when it goes beyond reason. They just want brownie points for a win, or worse, they have an agenda. They will nit pick every little detail to mislead the discussion well after they have been proven wrong. I don't think anything can be gained by stooping to their level by addressing their issues, they simply drag the discussion down or at least sideways from the key point. Its a baiting process. Trackinfo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for three good sources. So far there's this Politico article. Other possibilities put forward are this Rolling Stone article (which I see as being about Justice Democrats, not Chakrabarti) and this India Abroad article (which is mostly a collection of quotes from the Politico and Rolling Stone articles). Any other candidates? Leviv ich 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above: Kozub (2017), Maddow (2016), and Politico (2019). Maddow's interview is a one-on-one prime time TV interview with probably over one million viewers about a organization he co-founded. He is not just its spokesperson, but a founder of this notable organization. The Politico one relates his role to Ocasio-Cortez; the others do not mention her. -- econterms (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kozub 2017 in The Verge is not about Chakrabarti, it's about Justice Democrats and The Young Turks. Chakrabarti isn't in the headline, he isn't in the lead picture, and his name isn't in the lead paragraph. The whole thing is 17 paragraphs, and there are two sentences about Chakrabarti, and they are: As the director of Organizing Technology for the Sanders campaign, Chakrabarti worked alongside Justice Democrats co-founder Zach Exley and communications director Corbin Trent to create software to organize grassroots support. ... The group, which intends to be a consolidated resource and fundraising entity for all of its candidates, shares many of its members with Justice Democrats, including Chakrabarti, Exley, and Trent. All of Chakrabarti's quotes in the piece are about Justice Democrats, not about himself. This is not in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. Same with the Maddow interview, in which Chakrabarti is being interviewed about his organization, Brand New Congress, not about himself. Maddow isn't profiling him, she's profiling BNC. Compare that with Politico, which is about him. If you set the "significant coverage" bar at Politico, nothing even comes close. Leviv ich 22:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will be really good if arguments about what does or does not "count" as significant coverage are based on Wikipedia policy rather than personal opinions. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Examples of significant coverage that meet GNG are Politico, Rolling Stone, New Yorker, Verge, and Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that policy excerpt. Yes, I agree, that's the exact part of GNG we should be looking at. It doesn't have to be the main part of the story, but it must be a source that "addresses the topic directly and in-depth". Let's look:

Politico – ok
Rolling Stone – one sentence about Chakrabarti (quoted above)
The Verge – two sentences about Chakrabarti (quoted above)
New Yorker – two sentences about Chakrabarti: Last spring, Chakrabarti, a thirty-two-year-old veteran of the Sanders campaign, was leading Brand New Congress, an organization that he co-founded to recruit progressive candidates, and which helped persuade Ocasio-Cortez to challenge a powerful Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, in New York’s Fourteenth Congressional District. and In our conversation, Chakrabarti came across as curious and excitable—he kept using the word "gigantic" to describe the changes he envisioned—and not unlike the young people who, a decade ago, attached themselves to Obama.
Fox News – In terms of depth, definitely second-place behind Politico, but still only a handful of sentences, and the focus is still more about others than him. Every time they say something about him, it's in the context of saying that he works for her.
- Meet Saikat Chakrabarti. At 33, he came to Washington a wealthy tech entrepreneur, and now serves as the congresswoman’s chief of staff – or as he quips in his Twitter bio, "CoS to @AOC."
- The aide for months flew under the radar, but hit the headlines amid fresh accusations of possible campaign finance violations in a conservative watchdog group's FEC complaint. Far from an in-the-trenches organizer by trade, Chakrabarti was a Harvard-educated computer engineer and went on to make his riches in a number of startups in Silicon Valley, before eventually turning his attention to promoting the new wave of democratic socialists.
- Chakrabarti spent eight years in Silicon Valley, where he co-founded the web design tool Mockingbird -- before working as a "founding engineer" at a payment processor called Stripe, according to his LinkedIn page. Politico reports that work came after a "brief stint on Wall Street." From there, he shifted into the world of left-wing activism, where he worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders', I-Vt., 2016 presidential bid, before co-founding Brand New Congress -- an organization looking to launch left-wing candidates into Congress. That in turn led to his co-founding of Justice Democrats -- the organization that seeks "to usher in a new generation of diverse working class leaders into the Democratic Party" and that propelled Ocasio-Cortez to her unlikely primary victory over then-Rep. Joe Crowley. During her longshot bid, Chakrabarti served as her campaign manager.
- Finances, though, are turning out to be problematic for Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti. The latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint accuses the pair of violating campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies he also controlled.

I guess if you concede that Fox News is a reliable source for information about AOC's Chief of Staff, then maybe the two (Politico and Fox News) would get him just across the GNG line (though there's still the BLP1E concern). Leviv ich 14:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting GNG, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" In addition to significant attention, GNG requires significant coverage. We don't have to guess what "significant coverage" means, the policy tells us what it means: enough detail about the topic that "no original research is needed to extract the content." The New Yorker and Rolling Stone articles report much of SC's story using his own words, using sentences that contain direct quotes. Those sentences also contain much direct and in-depth information about SC and his work. I disagree with @Levivich:'s claim, which GNG nowhere supports, that only one or two sentences of each article are "about" SC. Also BLP1E? Of the "three conditions" mentioned in BLP1E, SC meets exactly zero. Can some admin please close this AfD as a clear Keep now? HouseOfChange (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the analysis of the sources above. I do not believe there is WP:BLP1E issue at all because the two most in-depth sources deal with 2 different events: One with his nomination as AOC's chief of staff, and the other with the campaign finance mismanagement claim. Emass100 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Do you feel comfortable closing this discussion? I think the consensus is clear. Castncoot (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, I don't. For two reasons. One, because I participated in the discussion, arguing to merge. Two, because I still think that while the numerical count favors keep, the arguments against keep are better reasoned and more persuasive. So no, I will remain as a commenter at this discussion, and you should find someone else to close it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 23 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the Year (album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. The album did not chart on any country's official chart and was not critically reviewed by any reliable publication. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. there are several multiple independent reliable sources provided on the article page of Dareysteel ( Spanish page ) Rayoveto (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. according to multiple independent reliable sources provided on the article page of Dareysteel , It is said to be also the debut album by Dareysteel -- released on ( 2 MAY 2016 ) , while the Unbreakable Álbum was released on ( 2 MARCH 2016 ) ... its SEEMS to be Double album released Rayoveto (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayoveto: That's very odd because on the Dareysteel page, someone listed "Dangerous" as his debut album. There seems be controversial information regarding that. Horizonlove (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- The album meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Per Significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Rayoveto (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayoveto:: What criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM does this article meet, and what "significant reliable sources" are you referring to? You can't just say it meets Wikiepedia's notability requirements without justifying it. You need to justify your argument. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First off, it looks unfinished. If that's the case, this page should not have been started until there was more information available. Whoever the creator of the page was, should have did a rough draft. A lot of mandatory contents are missing from this article including track listing, cover art, a release date (not a release year), chart information, etc. One line from the article reads "Man of the Year consists of two tracks, Twerk it and Give it to me". If that's the case, this is not an album but a single, an extended play at best considering that the project title is different from any song in the track list. Unless this is quickly rectified in the article, it fails WP:NALBUM and it would also fail WP:NSINGLE. Also the Rhapsody link is a dead page. Horizonlove (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dareysteel, who appears to be just about notable, or if editors feel the search title isn't a viable one, delete. Fails WP:NALBUM – there aren't enough reliable sources to sustain an independent article for the album. Interestingly, although there appear to be several sources from Nigerian newspapers and online websites for the artist, most of them don't appear to be "reliable" and "independent" either... a comparison shows that the wording of the newspaper articles is strikingly similar, suggesting that they were fed a press release, and each newspaper has just altered a few words here and there and then published it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Horizonlove: the reliable sources used in this article and the article for Dareysteel call the record an album... if that's what the sources call it, it's not up to us to decide if it's a single. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think an article should be nominated for deletion so soon after the first one closed, but having said that, I can't see any significant coverage for the album, those I can find are just simple announcements. No sourced chart entry either, fails WP:NALBUM. The only question is if it should be redirected, but those searching for Man of the Year are more likely to be looking for some kind of award or a film, few are likely to look for an album by someone barely notable himself. Having it as a redirect is just unnecessary clutter. Hzh (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: the user page Horizonlove ( IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME ) i suspect Sock puppetry --- so i hereby request a proper investigation to Horizonlove before the conclusion of this article debate Rayoveto (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayoveto: What are you talking about? I only made a comment regarding article to delete, which I have the right to do if the article has been nominated for deletion. It is highly inappropriate to accuse me of sockpuppetry when you don't have a valid reason to justify your request nor do you have another user to accuse of being my so-called sockpuppet. Nevertheless, you're welcome to open an investigation but you are being highly inappropriate. But if you're accusing me of sockpuppetry because you find my vote and/or comment funny, I would advise you to take a look at my actions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs page and then read the Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Horizonlove (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:51, 18 March 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. Lourdes 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Basketball World Cup Top Scorer[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN as independent reliable sources do not discuss this group. This is all sourced to stats listings from the tournament organizer. Moreover, no evidence this is an "honor" that is "bestowed" as article claims. No ceremony, no award, no trophy. List creator also created similar, recently deleted list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer. If we allow this minimal level of inclusion, FIBA stats site also boasts "key figures" like the shortest player at each event —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) article includes stats from numerous independent sources, not just the tournament organizer. The top scorer of the tournament is noted in all tournaments and the tournament history, per the official site of the world basketball federation. Does not fail the list guideline either, as it does have independent sources listing the grouping. All of this is actually linked as sources in the article. The leading scorer of the world basketball cup of FIBA is not a trivial minimal inclusion like shortest player at a tournament, as is argued in the reason for deletion.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your recent edits are a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:CITEOVERKILL. It looks like you dumped every hit from Google, even if you (presumably) couldn't read the language or know if it's acually a reliable source. Which ones are reliable, independent, and talk about the grouping?—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed mistaken reply

With all due respect, and I understand that you are an admin with good knowledge of site rules, but you are being a bit unreasonable in my opinion. You say it has only official sources from the league, then dismiss when verifiable independent English sources are added, you simply on personal opinion dismiss them. You say the article is something trivial like shortest player at a tournament, when it is the lead scorer of the biggest FIBA tournament. You claim the article lacks sufficient sources, then when they are added to precisely source everything, officially, independently and with English sources, you claim the article as bombarded. You claim there is no award, even though two sources from FIBA's official website list that each tournament's top scorer is noted, in list form, in a group. You claim there are no independent sources listing the group...this after I put multiple independent sources in the article which in fact list these groupings exactly as they are edited in the article. In both English and Spanish, and independent, from multiple sources listing the groupings. This meets the definition of Wikipedia under list that you claim it does not.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, Bagumba, I had two tabs open and one of them was the wrong discussion, and I edited on wrong comments. My mistake. I forget how to do the thign where you cross the comments out.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: I've collapsed your comment since there weren't any replies. If you want some things kept you can just move them outside of this section. For future reference, you can cross comments out with <s></s> surrounding the text, and collapse them with {{cot}} on top and {{cob}} below. There's a quick reference for formatting at H:CS. You can also use an editor like the visual editor by changing it in your prefernces (personally I use WikiEd, which has a handy toolbar).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Not seeing this particular list getting any coverage from WP:RS. Rikster2 (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as these lists in groups in numerous independent sources, as well as from FIBA, and several such source lists are in the article, including from two of the biggest international sports databases. Is this simply your opinion these are unreliable sources, even though they exactly match the info at FIBA's website? Two of the biggest basketball databases list these groupings, as does one of the biggest basketball sports sites in Spain. Again, all sourced in the article. Also a publication of a big sports site in Spain, and also a media magazine. Did you simply not look at the sources? If that is the case, I will take the time to list them all here, showing these exact groupings from FIBA and several independent sports websites and media publication.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources on just with these specific groupings, matching official FIBA site, and also from a large sports media and a magazine as well.

[39] --> lists the top scorers by points

[40] --> official FIBA site showing these grouping and that indeed is matched to other independent sources

[41] --> official website of FIBA listing that each tournament officially notes the top scorer and listed in same exact group as the article

[42] --> shows the same exact groupings in large independt sports media, including the magazine where it is published in these groups exactly as in the article - on page 39, it lists exactly that these top scorers are noted in the tournament's history and in exact grouping as in the article.

[43] --> again, lists this same grouping as in the article, and that yes, they are listed that way and noted.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on the sources you mentioned above: 1) Beko is an appliance and electronics company, and not a reliable source on basketball. Moreover, they are not independent, as they were a FIBA "presenting partner" in 2014 (see bottom of this FIBA page), 2) FIBA's own website is not independent, 3) FIBA's own website is not independent, 4) The reference is a stats listing; it doesn't have any prose to discuss the grouping. Wikipedia does not exist to duplicate an almanac. 5) Another pure stats listing without prose.—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are showing a personal bias against site guideline Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and also are very clearly laid out as an action and example of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which shouldn't a surprise, as you state have 476 articles deleted off Wikipedia here at your user talk page User:Bagumba and used an article you also got deleted as a justification for why this article should be deleted, which isn't a valid reason for an AFD. Also, this probably needs to be stated here in proper context Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion --> your arguments and reasons for this article to be deleted do not meet the proper guidelines per the site's own stated info on article deletion. To be trying to get an article deleted, and not following those guidelines, and in fact going against them (claiming no sources and group listings sources when there are both) is a clear evidence that you are engaging in deletionism and are trying get an article deleted out of a personal feeling of not wanting it on the site, despite that the article does not fail the very guidelines you claim it does.

1. Beko is an independent source. If it is not an independent source, then no US sports media in existence is an independent source, using the same criteria you are using here. No articles here using a US sports media as a source should be counted as having a valid source then. Beko is an independent source, and you simply wrongly assert on your own opinion that it isn't, and try to pass use that as justification for article deletion...

4. The reference is an independent and reliable and verifiable source material of a large sports media, which confirms their is such a distinction noted (something you dispute as a justification to delete the article), and it lists the grouping (something you keep asserting the article does not have and therefore should be deleted), to which you claim there is no such independent source listing the grouping - these are obvious deletionist tactics, to first claim there is no such source, and then when it is provided in the discussion, to simply argue that it's not valid, even though it is.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... you state have 476 articles deleted ...: Technically, it's from {{Adminstats}}. At any rate, those are actual deletions from speedy deletion or where there was consensus in AfDs to delete, etc. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting) Those are not my votes. On the subject of votes, your AfD record shows that you did not match consensus in 54.5% of your votes.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are showing a personal bias ...: Or maybe I just believe the article doesn't meet WP:LISTN. WP:AGF. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beko isn't just an appliance and electronics company. It's one of, and perhaps the, largest sports advertising companies in Europe, akin to something like Nike in USA, in that regard. And yes, it is independent for a source guideline, just in the same exact way as something like ESPN, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. covers US sports, and wouldn't be blocked as a source for Wikipedia, simply because they cover, broadcast, advertise whatever said sport.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a "sport advertising" company or Nike to news outlets? OK.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "honor" and "bestowed" claim mentioned in the nomination has since been removed from the lead. Still, no evidence that WP:LISTN is met by independent sources discussing this as a notable grouping.—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. In addition, WP:NOTSTATS. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not fail site guidelines "per nomination", as explained thoroughly already before your response. Also, the article does not fail WP:NOTSTATS - as it contains this prose within the article --->

Álvaro Salvadores, of Spain, was the leading scorer by points per game, of the first FIBA World Cup (then called the FIBA World Championship), the 1950 FIBA World Championship, which was held in Argentina. Chile's Rufino Bernedo, led that same tournament in total points scored, with 86.

Nikos Galis of Greece, led the 1986 FIBA World Championship in scoring. Oscar Schmidt of Brazil, led the 1990 FIBA World Championship in scoring. Australia's Andrew Gaze, was the leading scorer of the 1994 FIBA World Championship. Spain's Alberto Herreros, was the leading scorer of the 1998 FIBA World Championship. Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, led the 2002 edition in scoring. China's Yao Ming, led the 2006 edition in scoring. Argentina's Luis Scola, led the 2010 edition in scoring.

The most recent World Basketball Cup leading scorer was J. J. Barea, of Puerto Rico, who led the 2014 FIBA World Cup in scoring. To date, no player has been the World Basketball Cup's leading scorer by points per game in more than one competition. However, Dirk Nowitzki led the tournament in total points scored twice, in the 2002 and 2006 competitions.

It's very easy to simply say an article fails or violates some site guideline, even if it does not, which is also a very classic and obvious deletionist tactic.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added more prose to the body of the article. It's not just some random listing of numbers. There is a body in the article with detailed prose about the subject matter.Bluesangrel (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN can be met by presenting independent sources here that discuss the grouping in prose. Not almanac-like stats listings. This is unrelated to the prose in this article. Either you did not understand, or your edits are further Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the article and this discussion with tons of prose and the group listing in question, at the bottom of the discussion, because it's getting hard to read the middle of the discussion. Also again, what you are using here as a reason to delete this article would also then call for the NBA articles on scoring leaders to also be deleted. They simply list a bunch of scoring leaders, and when held to the same standards and arguments you are using, they would probably be deleted - yet I see no AFD tags on those NBA articles. Take List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders for example - just a bunch of stats in a list, with no prose and not a single source that would at all satisfy the demands you are making here. Not a single independent reliable source listing with the group being discussed and with prose within it, which is the standard you keep using here for this article over and over and over. So the only difference is this article isn't based in a USA sports competition, something that's not supposed to matter for the site, as that's a personal bias among some that might be editing and against the whole general concept of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It shouldn't make an article for NBA scoring leaders OK, just because it's a United States competition, and make an article for leading scorers of a worldwide FIBA basketball competition not worthy of a site article, because some editors might feel like something outside of USA centered events is unimportant. Also, an article does not have to meet whatever any certain editor claims as their own personal standard of acceptance for it to not be deleted, simply adhering to site policy is what is actually supposed to be the case, not any single editor's idea of noteworthy and valid source - because then no article would be good enough for inclusion. And an actual consensus isn't reached by someone using deletionist talking points and tactics over and over again to make a discussion appear as it is proving a justification for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - nothing about an article having to meet every single whim of an editor that thinks the article simply shouldn't on the site. It just states what it states. Two completely different things from personal opinions on what should or should not be an article. Such tactics being used to push for deletion of articles through AFD process is deletionist personal point of view. Looking at NBA articles as totally justified with just a list, no prose and no such sources as talked about here as being fine, but a world basketball article as being something that needs to be deleted, even if it has prose and such sources as well, is leading to Coverage of topics and systemic bias - which should be avoided, because this isn't supposed to just be a USA centered project, and something like a worldwide basketball event shouldn't even really be held to such, because that's a tournament in which 80 countries compete to qualify and 32 countries compete at the actual final round, which in reality makes it more culturally significant outside the USA than the NBA.Bluesangrel (talk)

Independent reliable source with the grouping in question and contained within prose - Mundobasket 2010 which again is a standard that similar NBA articles at Wikipedia are definitely not being held to.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article current contains this prose in the article's body:

Álvaro Salvadores, of Spain, was the leading scorer by points per game, of the first FIBA World Cup (then called the FIBA World Championship), the 1950 FIBA World Championship, which was held in Argentina. Chile's Rufino Bernedo, led that same tournament in total points scored, with 86. At the 1954 event, it was Uruguay's Oscar Moglia, that led in scoring, with an average of 18.7 points per game.

He was followed in 1959 by James T. L. Chen, of the Republic of China (Taiwan), who led in points per game, at 20.1, and Team USA's Jerry Vayda, who was first in total points scored, with 162. In 1963, the lead scorer was Peru's Ricardo Duarte, who had an average of 23.1 points per game. Poland's Mieczysław Łopatka, led in scoring average in 1967, at 19.7 points per game, while his teammate, Bohdan Likszo, led in total points scored, at 180.

They were followed by South Korea's Shin Dong-pa, who averaged 32.6 points per game in 1970. Mexico's Arturo Guerrero, who averaged 27.0 points per game in 1974, was that competition's leader in scoring average, while Wayne Brabender of Spain, led in total points scored, with 207. At the next competition, in 1978, it was Kamil Brabenec of Czechoslovakia, that was the leader in scoring average, at 26.9 points per game, while Yugoslavia's Dražen Dalipagić led the same competition in total points scored, with 200.

Rolando Frazer of Panama, was first in scoring average at the 1982 FIBA World Championship, in which he averaged 24.4 points per game, while Yugoslavia's Dragan Kićanović, was first in total points scored, with 190 points. Nikos Galis of Greece, led the 1986 FIBA World Championship in scoring. After Galis, Oscar Schmidt of Brazil, led the 1990 FIBA World Championship in scoring.

Schmidt was followed by Australia's Andrew Gaze, who was the leading scorer of the 1994 FIBA World Championship. After Gaze, it was Spain's Alberto Herreros, who was the leading scorer of the 1998 FIBA World Championship. Herreros was followed by Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, who led the 2002 edition in scoring.

China's Yao Ming, led the 2006 edition in scoring average, as he averaged 25.3 points per game, while Dirk Nowitzki of Germany was first in total points scored, with 209 points. Argentina's Luis Scola, led the 2010 edition in scoring.J. J. Barea of Puerto Rico, led the 2014 FIBA World Cup in points per game, with a scoring average of 22.0 points per game. At the same event, Pau Gasol of Spain was the leader in total points scored, with 140 points.

To date, no player has been the World Basketball Cup's leading scorer by points per game in more than one competition. However, Dirk Nowitzki led the tournament in total points scored twice, in the 2002 and 2006 competitions.
it's not even a pertinent argument being used here for deletion. Also with independent and reliable inline citations, and yes again, the article does have independent sources with the group listing, even though it keeps being claimed it doesn't.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I should have seen this right away, but I didn't want to assume Bagumba was just being a deletionist. I should have seen it right away, when he tagged the artice with an AFD, claiming it was something trivial and akin to an article about the shortest player at an event, and that "we" (deletionists) shouldn't allow something like that here at Wikipedia because such a "minimal level of inclusion" would lead to "shortest player at an event" getting an article. No it wouldn't. And obviously this is just a deletionism tactic by a deltionist (Bagumba), that simply personally wants to get rid of the article. The article does have independent verifiable sources, and does have the grouping listed by independent verifiable sources (more than one). To which Bagumba simply claims it does not. And even with them provided in both the article and this discussion, Bagumba simply claims there are none. That is a clear 100% classic deletionist tactic. The article does not fail WP:LISTN as Baguma claims it does. It has independent verifiable sources (multiple), and it has the same with the specific groupings listed, which he simply asserts that it does not (without any proof), meaning his deletion discussion arguments here also fail Wikipedia burden of proof. In addition, this seems to very clearly be an example of USA centric bias. Why are the articles of NCAA lead scorers and NBA lead scorers not tagged with deletion discussions? Because they are American basketball events. If this article was titled "American Basketball League Top Scorer", it wouldn't have been tagged. Such bias, that Bagumba wants this article deleted, because they think it is unimportant and shouldn't be on the site, despite similar articles being on the site with an American point of view, is a bias of American centrism. All this in general, should be unacceptable reasoning for an article's deletion per this Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - as the arguments for deleting this article clearly fall under Bagumba's own opinions and ignore independent sources. List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders and List of National Basketball Association career playoff scoring leaders should also be deleted, using the same criteria and arguments Bagumba is using here in this delete discussion. Those articles would fail the same list rules and source rules, etc., based on Bagumba's arguments and claims in this discussion. However, no deletion tag has been placed on those articles, because they are about a basketball competition that is a USA based event.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is another example of an independent source from a reliable sports media, which includes the grouping in question, and which also includes pages of continuous prose (which addresses another argument which was used here to try to invalidate the listed sources and justify deletion of the article) ---> Mundobasket 2010.Bluesangrel (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not another example. It's the same publisher and almanac-style list as in the Guía BasketMe Spanish source [4] that you presented already above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a listing with the group, that's contained with prose, that is independent and reliable, and that comes from a major media source. It's also not an almanac either - it's a sports magazine. Meets site criteria, and all criteria you keep laying out. Also, again, Wikipedia has several NBA articles for leading scorers, that don't have prose in the article, and don't have any such source as you are demanding (no such grouping in question with prose that is independent and not just an almanac like listing), and again there are no AFD tags on those pages.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association career playoff scoring leaders and Basketball-Reference.com enumeration of NBA career playoff leaders in points scored / List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders and Basketball-Reference.com enumeration of NBA career leaders in points scored those clearly would fail the same criteria and standards you are laying out here as justification for deletion of this article. Seems again to be a v ery clear case of deletionism and American centric POV.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the tables, at least, are nice to have somewhere, but they're already listed at FIBA Basketball World Cup records. Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, even if one went on a limb and said this was notable, WP:N says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. WP:PRESERVE is met by your comment. (Incidentally, WP:DUE drives article content, not "nice".) Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To elaborate, I think "top scorer" is a significant statistic, and something of broad interest. The tables do contribute to a more well-rounded, historical overview of this tournament. And I actually did learn some things from looking at this information! (For example, it's interesting to see that a Peruvian player was once the top scorer. I never knew that Peru used to compete at this level of basketball.) The prose content in FIBA Basketball World Cup Top Scorer doesn't add much, but the tables themselves are worth keeping somewhere, in some form. Zagalejo^^^ 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify one of the deletion arguments here, the editor which proposes deletion of the article states in the nomination that -
    - If we allow this minimal level of inclusion, FIBA stats site also boasts "key figures" like the shortest player at each event
    - Yet Wikipedia has these two articles - List of shortest players in National Basketball Association history and List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history - neither of which have any deletion tags on them. So again, a very clear example of basing what is or isn't notable for Wikipedia, on a the world revolves around what happens in the USA view, rather on what is actually notable or not (which is site policy). With the argument for deletion clearly then being able to be morphed into an argument that any such article that is for a USA sports competition is notable, and any such article for a non USA sports competition isn't notable. While using a double standard and one that isn't even outlined by site policy for sources, while ignoring that same standard would get plenty of USA centric sports articles deleted that are evidently considered notable by the editor nominating for deletion (as no deletion tags still on such articles). This sort of reasoning for article deletion could lead to mass deletions of non USA centered sports articles from the project, which would match basic principles of site deletionism in general. What is to stop the same editor from moving right to the next such sports article that isn't a USA based competition and using this article (if it is deleted) as a justification for why that next article should be deleted? Citing and arguing that site discussions have deemed such non USA sports articles are not notable? There is nothing at all to stop the same editor from doing exactly that. Site policy is against using such tactics as that for deletion of articles, yet editors that have a deletionist viewpoint of the site do it all the time. And again....no deletion tags on NBA or NCAA basketball leading scorers articles, or even on the tallest and shortest players articles, which is used as a basic premise of deletion of the article.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not at all going out on a limb to say this is notable. It's the leading scorer of the biggest basketball competition in the world, which gets more TV viewers and has more attendance than the Olympics basketball, has 80 countries competing to qualify for it, and has 32 countries competing directly in it. It's the leading scorer of the main competition organized by the world governing body of the sport, FIBA. This is without any question considered a notable subject. Your personal assertion that it isn't notable, is an example of a USA centric perspective, and basing what should or should not be included into Wikipedia as an article on USA centrism, rather than what is actually a notable subject worldwide, and what isn't. This is a subject with a worldwide interest. While there are no deletion tags on various articles about leading scorers of NCAA and NBA basketball competitions, which are just for the USA (NCAA basketball), and just for the USA and Toronto (NBA). And again, those articles wouldn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this site that you are applying for this FIBA related article. Wikipedia isn't a USA centered project - and isn't supposed to be that, yet your description of this subject not being notable is clearly demonstrating a USA centric POV of what articles should be on the site. The leading scorer of the biggest and most important international basketball competition in the world, and in the history of the sport of basketball is notable, and just because it isn't a USA organized competition does not mean it should not have inclusion at Wikipedia. That also shouldn't be a tactic used for deletionist ideals to be achieved for elimination of non USA based sports articles from the project. A wider discussion in general at the site over non USA sports articles should be had if this article is deleted. Because if these types of non USA sports articles are deleted one by one, eventually there will be nothing to prevent the whole argument that non USA sports articles are not notable, which it feels like that is the basic premise here. That feels much more the likely scenario of such USA bias perspective on these types of articles by many times, over the idea of "shortest player at a tournament" having an article. Which itself is quite ironic, when you consider that the site has articles for shortest and tallest NBA players, and they also do not have any deletion tags on them. This is an obvious USA centric bias in judging what is or isn't pertinent for Wikipedia. List of shortest players in National Basketball Association history and List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history - no deletion tags, and yet the idea of such "trivial" articles as "shortest player at a tournament" is used to argue this notable subject (leading scorer) should be deleted, even though again, numerous such USA centric articles exist for NCAA and NBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wall of text of WP:OTHERSTUFF and whataboutism by article creator. The alleged NBA/USA bias is pure posturing and hypocritical. For the record, Blueangrel was the only keep !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Basketball Association single-postseason series scoring leaders, an NBA list which I nominated for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)/[reply]
Comment. I'm confused. The FIBA Basketball World Cup is a notable tournament with its own WP-article. Surely a reader would find it useful to know the top scorer in each FIBA Basketball World Cup tournament. I can list many other types of WP articles on top scorers in tournaments (e.g. FIFA World Cup top goalscorers). This seems to be a well constructed and well referenced article. I can't see the violation of WP:PAG, or the harm to our readers, of knowing who the top scorers were at a WP-notable tournament? Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The inability of Bluesangrel to make a simple short WP:PAG argument aside, I can't see what this is not a keep-article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)?[reply]

Here is an NBA article referencing Luis Scola as the Top Scorer in a FIBA World Cup [44]. If the NBA think that this it is notable .... Britishfinance (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is The Bleacher Report referencing Pau Gasol as the Top Scorer in a FIBA World Cup [45]. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per my refs and discussion above, moving to a keep. Britishfinance (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of online references to "Top Scorers" at FIBA World Cups. [46]. Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for the WP:PAG of it, this list does NOT violate WP:LISTN. Per LISTN, this is a "complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", where FIBA World Cup is the notable-X and Top scorer is the notable-Y. This is why we have hundreds of WP-lists of such statistics (I won't bore you by listing them). I do agree with deleting WP-LISTS where the statistic is not notable (e.g. most fouls), however Top Scorer is (as is evident by the scale of WP articles chronicling Top Scorers in WP-notable tournaments). Britishfinance (talk) 16:40, 26 March 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. Being a local municipal official or a failed candidate doesn't necessary mean that the subject fails WP:GNG, but ultimately it appears that he just barely falls short. No new sources have been presented, so we have to go with what is in the article; the recent article in The Age appears to be the best one but consensus is against regarding it as sufficient to meet GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Risstrom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. Inconclusive discussion at WP:AWNB#David Risstrom. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title "City of Melbourne councillor" isn't what it sounds like — the City of Melbourne is the local government area (what readers in Canada, the United States or the UK would understand as a borough councillor below the level of the entire city) for downtown Melbourne, not the governing body of Melbourne as a whole. So he's not a "city councillor in a global city" for the purposes of WP:POLOUTCOMES, he's a person who would have to pass the "highly sourceable as much more notable than the norm for his level of significance" test. And being a non-winning candidate in a federal election is not a notability criterion either, so that's not in and of itself enough to get him over the special case bar. As for the argument in the AWNB thread that his candidacy was itself a special case of greater notability than most other candidates, even that condition isn't passed just because somebody asserts it — it's passed only if and when the sources properly support it by exploding significantly out of proportion to what every other non-winning candidate can also show. But with just two media sources and a raw table of election results, that's not nearly enough sourcing to get him there. No prejudice against recreation after election day 2019 if he wins his seat, but nothing present here is convincing evidence that he's already notable enough today. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a low level political personality that did not get over the the election line to date for routine reasons and hence does not get over the GNG line either. Aoziwe (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in his own right, has only been near notable events. I would like the administrator who deletes the article to send it to my user space. The subject could potentially become notable, and not just by becoming an elected politician. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some regret. Bearcat is correct that the City of Melbourne is just for the CBD; however, Melbourne city councillors (like Sydney city councillors) do often get a lot more coverage in the statewide press than your average local councillor or even mayor. Having said that, I just can't see the coverage in this case, and the 2004 result was dramatic but doesn't lend any notability to Risstrom himself. Happy to reconsider if significantly more sources are added than I have been able to find (I'm aware that there may be some significant sources offline). Frickeg (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I found over 500 articles discussing Risstrom. It doesn't necessarily appear in Google because he's had a lower profile for the last decade and all Google coverage of Australian newspapers is rubbish before about 2006, as you'd well know. It just means somebody has to hit the newspaper databases to do a good rewrite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, he was a city councillor in a "global city" for the purposes of WP:POLOUTCOMES: the argument that that guideline doesn't apply to Australian cities is nonsense. Secondly, I almost always vote delete on unelected political candidates and have for years, but this is not a routine case - his particular Senate defeat was in uniquely controversial circumstances, is still frequently referenced fifteen years later, and has the hundreds of sources you'd expect from that. As I said in the initial discussion, this was always going to come down to whether people judged notability on the actual sources available, or on the sources people imagined existed having heard the mere fact of him having been an unsuccessful political candidate. We don't judge notability at AfD by the sources in the article, we judge it by the sources that exist, and this just needs somebody to do a thorough rewrite from the 500+ available articles about him. He was always notable, as reflected in the last AfD: he's only being nominated this time because of the assumption of non-notability for political candidates regardless of WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this argument about drawing notability from the 2004 election is very misguided. Putting aside how unusual or not the election was, the coverage was not about him. When it comes to Wayne Dropulich who was elected (but later voided) from 0.2% of first preferences, or Albert Field who was a nobody who stumbled into becoming a senator for two months, there was media interest in who these people were. Reliable sources had the style of "who exactly is this Wayne Dropulich??" which simply wasn't something that was asked about David Risstrom since he lost. If Risstrom won that election then that event could have made him notable enough for an article, but then he would be notable as an elected politician anyway.
  If it takes pre-2006 articles to substantiate notability, then we're not only looking at newspaper articles but academic sources as well. That's why I think the article should be somewhere in some form because it's possible he will be notable at some point in the future, regardless of elections. Frickeg is right to say that CBD councillors are usually more notable, but that notability would then be shown in the reliable sources and not assumed from being a councillor. That said, if there's something about him that we don't know, then let's reconsider deleting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a hell of a lot more in reliable sources about Risstrom than there ever will be about Dropulich. There's a reason all we know about Dropulich as a person is that he is a "Perth-based civil engineer and mining project manager who used to work for Rio Tinto" and that he is "a former gridiron player for the Australian representative team". That's probably all we'll ever know - but he's safe because of the quirks of {[WP:NPOL]]. Yet Risstrom, who we can say quite a lot more about referenced to reliable sources, winds up here instead because of the unsuccessful-or-current-candidate-kiss-of-death despite objectively passing WP:GNG. As you state, CBD councillors are usually more notable - and Risstrom has the solid coverage in reliable sources that comes with that. It just, like a great many others, is not currently in the article because no one has bothered to put it there: no assumptions are required if you look at the sources that really, factually exist instead of assuming without evidence that every past unsuccessful candidate or current candidate must have not much. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about how much information there is about someone. As someone else said, there may be a lot of information about an ordinary member of the public simply because of social media. Dropulich is clearly just a more private person than Risstrom, that doesn't make him less notable. There is likely much more written about Risstrom than Albert Field, the 1975 senator from Queensland, but clearly Albert Field is a more notable person. Risstrom is really on the verge of being notable, while Dropulich and others are just on the opposite side of that line. It's not as if Dropulich is actually less notable than Risstrom but we're forced to have an article about him because of NPOL. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not make the nomination based on an "assumption" that he is non-notable because he failed in an election. I made it because there is nothing in the article to demonstrate that he is notable under any criteria. If councillors other than mayor and deputy mayor of the City of Melbourne were implicitly assumed to be notable, there'd be a sea of red links instead of black names in the list of current councillors, and another subcategory of Category:City of Melbourne for the non-mayoral members. As it happens, Dropulich could quite possibly survive AFD on the grounds of having been a "gridiron player for the Australian representative team" - if that actually involved playing international matches. I'm quite open to the idea of changing the notability guidelines if you think they set the bar too high for Melbourne councillors. My understanding is that Risstrom (the person) was not significant in the 2004 election. It could have been anyone as the Greens candidate. If the outcome was only because Risstrom was the Greens candidate not Joe Bloggs, then the articles should reflect that. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's fair to look at councillors being the subject of articles, but all councillors (including CBD councillors) who have Wikipedia articles are notable for something else other than being councillors. Can anybody here name any city councillors who haven't been anything more than councillors? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - We actually have quite a bunch of them, but I'm not going to highlight them to people who are in a mood for trying to whack articles on notable topics. The suggestion that we would need to change notability guidelines to allow city councillor articles is a sleight of hand: WP:NPOL explicitly allows this, and it's only a couple of users here arguing that it uniquely doesn't apply to Australian global city councils. I honestly don't think there's a capital city councillor that, given decent digitised coverage of their era, I couldn't write a decent article on - but there's only so much I'm willing to swim upstream in the face of people who will vote delete regardless of the damn coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been holding out for as long as I could to see if there was a proper claim to notability for David Risstrom since I am usually hesitant about deleting articles, but all we've been shown is the 2004 election loss and being a former councillor. I'm not sure why you give so much importance to the City of Melbourne local council since I'm sure you're aware that it only has about 100,000 residents. If there are other notable councillors, I'm willing to help write those articles. Given there's been hundreds of councillors over the history of the City of Melbourne, we can't seriously say that they're all notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Capital city councillors are regularly discussed in the metropolitan dailies all the time, and have been since the city councils were a thing. They get drastically higher coverage than suburban councillors and always have. I'm absolutely not exaggerating when I say that I could write notable articles about all of them provided all the newspapers of their era are digitised. The available sources are exactly on par with the other cities at the level protected by the existing wording of WP:NPOL. That's why I give importance to it - but no one is ever going to bother to put serious work into fleshing out topics with an axe constantly hanging over the head of their work, and why areas likely to be hit by random arbitrary AfDs regardless of sourcing are generally in such bad shape. All the actual media coverage in the world doesn't matter if a handful of users inevitably insist that Australian councillors are low-profile and should be deleted regardless of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Surely if all councillors of capital cities are notable enough there would be many more articles about them. There are definitely people who would be bothered to make articles about them, the subjects themselves. I would like to see an example of the Herald Sun or The Age discussing Risstrom as a councillor, because so far that evidence hasn't been forthcoming. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the second time that The Drover's Wife has accused me of voting delete on principal for failed candidates and city councillors. I'm pretty sure my record would say otherwise, and I often try to fix articles before throwing up my hands and proposing their deletion instead. I have no doubt that some city councillors satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. They do not automatically fit WP:POLITICIAN whether we like it or not. I did not say "...we would need to change notability guidelines to allow city councillor articles...", I said I'm quite open to the idea of changing the notability guidelines if you think they set the bar too high for Melbourne councillors. which is to say we would need to change the guideline to automatically assume that Melbourne (or any other city) councillors are notable purely through being elected. WP:POLOUTCOMES says that {[tq|precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas}} so this AFD has the opportunity to demonstrate that Risstrom has made a sufficient impact through his five years on the City of Melbourne council. The article currently does not mention that he did anything other than be Green, get re-elected, and resign. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Drover's Wife, if you want to use the argument we judge notability by the existence of suitable sources and not just the quality of sources present in the article as a reason to keep an article that's under discussion, you need to keep in mind that it's not enough to just say that — you need show hard proof that the quality and depth of sourcing needed to get him over the bar actually exists. If you were trying to stake his notability on something that happened last week or last year, then yes, everybody in the discussion could easily just type his name into Google News — but if his strongest claim to potential notability occurred 15 years ago, then the media coverage it would take to get him over the bar won't Google, and will have to be retrieved from archives that not everybody has access to. So for a person whose primary notability claim predates Google News, most people can really, truly only judge based on the state of sourcing present in the article — not because those users are being negligent, but because they don't have access to the resources to even try to look anywhere else. I, for example, only have access to Canadian media archiving databases — if a topic requires archived American or British or Australian coverage instead of Canadian, then I literally can't do a damn thing. But we don't simply hand every article a free assumption that better referencing exists, either — we evaluate the media coverage that people actually show. So if you're so sure that enough media coverage actually exists to make him notable, then you need to show some actual evidence and not attack other people for not finding sources they don't have the ability to even try to find. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think The Drover's Wife has attacked anybody. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's got over 500 newspaper hits to work with. I don't particularly have the time for that kind of rewrite now, and I'm particularly reluctant to do it because the assumption of non-notability for people who are current candidates for parliament or who have previously been unsuccessful candidates is so strong I could write an WP:FA on the bloke and some people would still be itching to delete it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's just five hundred times of being mentioned though. It's disingenuous to suggest that people think the article should be deleted because he's a non-incumbent candidate. We're all aware that his notability is purported to be related to being a local councillor and his connection to the 2004 senate election. Maybe it's happened before but it's clearly not happening here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep nothing has emerged that undoes what has been well established, the person was notable before the recent news, any one of the recent stories makes him double-double notable and this was clearly established in the recent discussion. Easily satisfies notablity, GNG if you likethe votes! are supporting some contorted interplay of guidelines that concludes uncertain so delete. cygnis insignis 16:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [insert line break cygnis insignis 15:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)][reply]
- "anyone who lost an election, no matter what other factors can be considered, is not allowed to have a wikipedia article" The essence of the delete arguments. cygnis insignis 08:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not true at all and thanks for jamming your added comment into the original post after that had been replied to. The delete arguments here are that being a failed political candidate alone does not establish notability. There may be other factors that establish notability, but none have been demonstrated regarding the subject of this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not modify my post, I added and dated that instead of engaging with editors and talk page ghouls directly. Go chase yourself. cygnis insignis 14:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Adding it the way you did is no better than modifying the post directly. It's essentially the same and it's something that you should not do. I suggest you read WP:TPG and WP:REDACT. You've been editig here long enough to know that! --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I will regard this as accusation you would rather double down on than withdraw, anyone who has read your comments would not expect otherwise. I inserted a line break [only!] and it is quite clear there was a comment / sig / date / additional comment / sig / different date. I recognise that avoiding a personalised reply from you is overly optimistic. cygnis insignis 15:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence in the article that even comes close to demonstrating that he meets GNG and I can't find any evidence. You can't simply claim he meets GNG, you have to demonstrate that he does. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The evidence is in the article (as is tradition), if someone happens to look before voting, the discussion that preceded this one contains a consensus to keep (in the midst of the anecdotes that remind me why I avoid contributing to discussions where I have a coi). cygnis insignis 03:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO is not met. The City of Melbourne is responsible only for the central business district of the city, so being a counsellor on it is not a particularly high profile role. There's a long standing consensus that standing unsuccessfully for election does not make a person notable, except in unusual circumstances which I don't think is the case here. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not high-profile according to who? There's not a City of Melbourne councillor who doesn't get written up in The Age and the Herald Sun on a reasonably regular basis. This is what I mean when I talk about the huge gap between "actually existing sources" and "assumed sources by people with opinions about councillors". The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be open to changing my !vote if it was shown to me that he was a high profile councillor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - TDW - add a few of the things he achieved as a councillor to the article and request us to revisit our !votes. I'm not from Victoria, and had never heard of him. I've heard of a number of City of Adelaide councillors, but I'm not suggesting that Alex Antic deserves an article before he is elected to the Senate. Anne Moran is probably the City of Adelaide councillor most likely to meet WP:GNG just for being a councillor. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bianca hall, or her editor, decided to a publish an article in The Age several days ((21 February 2019)) before the discussion of this article was reopened, this establishes his notability and is a notable coincidence. cygnis insignis 03:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you mean this article? It looks like bog standard election stuff to me and is mainly about a lot of other party stuff than just the subject? Aoziwe (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you make your mind up before or after reading the article. Risstrom is the subject, and the party stuff relates to him directly, I never claimed it was interesting. cygnis insignis 08:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, afterwards. I read through it three times to see what I was missing. I was expecting and hoping for more. Maybe I am just jaded by the vast majority of our politicians and political parties.... Aoziwe (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Seriously, good for you, I was being a shit. You usually make good comments. I'm jaded by comments that just seem to create more discussion for its own sake, it is like an online game where the rules are in-house and unrelated to what we do here. [forgot to sign] cygnis insignis 15:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frickeg. Candidates who have lost an election are not seen as meeting WP:GNG and local municipal officials are generally expected to receive national or international profiles in independent sources. --Enos733 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the original AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was a complete nonsense with an atypical background. The proposer was unhappy that a similar article was deleted, and nominated this article purely on the basis that the other article was deleted. The responses were simply calling the nomination as baseless, which it was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was some especially good comments in that AfD, prescient I think, As you say, "calling the nomination as baseless, which it was". Even more so now, as I read it, cygnis insignis 13:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Does not meet WP:GNG as candidate lost the elections. Alex-h (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I won’t bother to read this long ass AfD, so from the actual article itself, I see no evidence of notability standards at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 21:11, 18 March 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 Park Ridge-Niles School District 64. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Field Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Elementary school that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOOL. (Appears to have gotten a pass in 2008 for a reason that doesn't hold up on English Wikipedia these days.) Closeapple (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Park Ridge-Niles School District 64, per my own nomination and WP:PAGEDECIDE. I think Wikipedia's notability standards and WP:NOTINHERITED standards are tighter than in 2008 when this article was kept, and the reasons given in 2008 are far weaker than they appeared to be at the time anyway. To wit:
1. Most importantly, the subject seems to fail WP:ORG, unless we can find WP:SIGCOV. See Google News archive search for "Eugene Field" "Park Ridge" -Hillary -Patch.com for example. (I excluded Patch.com because there seems to be some search engine spam on that site that causes news that has nothing to do with Eugene Field to show up.) If you remove -Hillary from the search, it's mostly just mentions of the school in passing in political profiles. To be fair, it's difficult to search for this particular school by geography, because this is one of 3 schools with the same name within 30 miles, and Eugene Field lists more than two dozen more across the United States.
2. The arguments for keep in the previous AfD utterly ignored Wikipedia's current WP:SIGCOV standards and were basically 100% what we'd now consider a textbook WP:INHERITED argument that some subject was clearly notable because it had been touched by a imminently-legendary person, which itself seems to have an unhealthy dose of WP:CRYSTAL. Even if a person's aura is big enough to cause that, then it should be easy to show that the touched subject will meet WP:GNG anyway. Someone probably has to be even more historically significant than Hillary Clinton for every house, school, and job to rise to WP:GNG on its own just because the person was once there. That requires Category:Abraham Lincoln level historical significance. Second, the old AfD was in February 2008, the first time everyone was in a fervor about Hillary Clinton being the next president of the United States. Well, oops— and oops again. So the old AfD Keep argument, in retrospect, ends up being about where a U.S. Senator (later U.S. Secretary of State) went to school. Third, the arguments were equally or more applicable to the school district than the individual school: The article also says she afterward went to Lincoln Middle School (but see note below), presumably the one in District 64, and that school doesn't have a separate article. Whatever needs to be said about Hillary Clinton in the Park Ridge grade schools can be summarized better across both schools in one school district article: see WP:PAGEDECIDE.
--Closeapple (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Despite the claim in the article, https://www.d64.org/communications/district-64-alumna-hillary-clinton says that Clinton went to Field Elementary then Emerson Junior High (which was later torn down and replaced by a new Emerson Middle School). --Closeapple (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Park Ridge-Niles School District 64, per what Closeapple described in leadin sentence. I'm surprised it wasn't touched in the 8 years since the first AfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and because that's typically what we do. Probably could have been done boldly. And yes, our feelings on WP:INHERIT have changed greatly in 11 years. John from Idegon (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Tacyarg (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Park Ridge-Niles School District 64. Not individually notable but there is encyclopaedic material that can and should be merged. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 22 March 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 Abortion law. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal abortion[edit]

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

This article is a stub with no references, and it is redundant to Unsafe abortion (where it has its own section) and Abortion law. ☣Yutsi ^Talk/ Edits 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Abortion law. Illegal abortion is not necessarily unsafe, per se. An abortion can be done where it is not permitted by law, but still be performed with all the safeguards of an abortion done in a place where it is legal. Granted, illegality is probably more likely to make abortion unsafe, but this can be addressed in the articles on Abortion law and Unsafe abortion. There is, as noted, nothing sourced to be merged. bd2412 T 03:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I created this precisely because because there was no distinction with Unsafe abortion.~~ [see below] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Redundant to at least two other articles & their content. Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have temporarily set this page as a redirect, however the section in "Unsafe abortion" is appalling from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. I think that it needs to removed, and will do so next. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Job done! This discussion can surely now be closed. The creator and main editor of the article nominated for deletion has elected to turn it into a redirect. Alarichall (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigve and Aksel[edit]

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

Non notable mountain; fails GNG and WP:V. There isn't even an article on where it's located. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be a hoax. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only things I could find on the subject was a website about "Mountains in Norway", and it wasn't from a reliable source. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 03:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I posted a message about this AfD on Discord, which brought the above !voters here. CoolSkittle (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a hoax to me too. I searched in Norwegian on Google and Google Books for things like '"Sigve og Aksel" fjell' and turned up nothing. Per Roger Lauritzen, Norske fjell og vidder seems not to mention it. Alarichall (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems like a hoax. Someone will need to prove me wrong to change my !vote. Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wright[edit]

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

A author who I can't quite find if she is notable or not. She does not appear to be that much to me, but I will see what others think. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to me that the subject's strongest claim to notability is being an Editor at Large for Harper's Bazaar. I don't know that that is shoo-in for notability, however. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Might be a redirect. BTW I have found at least one other person with this name (no surprise), an actress from the 50s, so if it survives any page linked to her that is some film should be renamed to Jennifer Write (actress). Back on topic though, I do think a redirect for now could be the best if not a delete. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that being Editor at Large for Harper's Bazaar could be described as playing a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known collective body of work. Her books have articles about them - those articles aren't great, but they do have a few reviews as references, so her independent work has received some critical attention - I think we can manage to get her over WP:NAUTHOR.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well as I said it is a bit tough to find info with someone like her as she has a very common name. If more info can be found though....Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 10 March 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, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Make this simple and redirect to Harper’s Bazaar. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. two of her books are blue-linked + Newsday: Jennifer Wright on ‘It Ended Badly,’ her book about breakups. passes WP:NAUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RadiologyCafe[edit]

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

No evidence that the website meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. The article was created by the website's founder. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no actual 3rd party evidence evidence for notability , and clearly promotional purpose. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator and request this is deleted as per WP:G7 .Chrisgdclarke (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jozeff (Jozeff Rogers)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Citations (many of which are simply references to other Wikipedia pages) do not indicate sufficient significant independent coverage to yet merit inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything that would satisfy the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, poor references, nothing notable in search for sources. GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. I also suspect COI and sockpuppetry, see history. Yann (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 16:34, 19 March 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.

[today-1] Lou, Shane (February 17, 2018). "Lori Loughlin's daughter shares the downside of growing up with 2 famous parents". Today. Retrieved March 14, 2019.

[2] Eckardt, Stephanie (January 11, 2018). "Lori Loughlin's Teen Daughters Have Nearly a Million Instagram Followers". W Magazine. Retrieved March 14, 2019.

[3] "Lori Loughlin's YouTube star daughter sparks major controversy for car crash video". AOL. AOL. Retrieved August 7, 2017.

[4] Justich, Kerry (August 17, 2018). "Celebrity kid called 'spoiled' and 'privileged brat' after saying she's going to college for 'game days' and 'partying'". Yahoo!. Retrieved March 14, 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]