The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even searching in Nepali, I couldn't find enough sources on this guy to maintain an article. The two linked in the article are actually the same text (see this archive text for the second one, which is a dead link), so they can't be taken as multiple sources. In the absence of any further sources, the article fails WP:V and can't be kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you searched the term in Devanagari? Usedtobecool (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like it's a genuine singer. Perhaps someone sitting in a library with access to all Nepali newspapers and magazines printed in the last 50 years could establish his notability. I don't see that happening any other way. So, I kinda agree with the nominator in that regard. I will probably vote for delete if and when it gets relisted. Usedtobecool (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the guy's name as written in the article, which I assumed was in Nepali, 'cause the article says "Nepali: कल्याण रिमाल". I'm not trying to argue he doesn't exist, but in the absence of sources, there's no way to verify the facts, so we can't maintain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Ah, I see. Yes, that's Devanagari and Nepali :) ) Well it is Nepal and this artist was active at/since the time when they didn't record songs, but went to a radio and sang it instead, as many times as it needed to be played. So, I refrain from hastily concluding something/someone Nepali as non- notable/verifiable just after a brief internet search. I did that same search. This page mentions him three times, with high regard, and is one of the most notable media in the country. This one mirrors coverage by a major news agency of him getting a major award in a ceremony presided over by the president of the country, for his contributions; which is confirmed by another credible source, amonga fewothers. So, he probably was well-covered during his prime. Whether someone can dig it up is entirely another matter. Hence, the decision to wait and see. Usedtobecool (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As per the current situation, I'd say delete. Exploreandwrite (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The primary/connected source issue might have been resolved, but the claim of this topic not meeting WP:GNG has gone essentially uncontested - see Jayden Black's and Walter Görlitz's exchanges as to why it doesn't seem to be resolved. There is a suggestion of a merger, but also a weighty counterargument that the merge target isn't specific to the software (a counterargument that also extends to redirecting). So delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was fixed yesterday. The bulk of primary and connected sources has been replaced by other ones, making this reason for deletion invalid. See article history for details. This deletion proposal can therefore be closed, leaving the article intact. Also, this article is not a company page; it is about a free and open-source software project that's been active for more than 10 years. --Jayden Black (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion of the article. I support to close this proposal, and leaving the article intact. As the article was recently updated to meet Wikipedia agreements. Speaking of agreement, I agree with @Jayden Black:, this Wikipedia article is about a free and open-source software project. Which is not to confuse with a company page. Today I added those 4 additional sources. Which have little or no connection or conflict of interest with Aegir Hosting System project. Any volunteers to add more sources? All are welcome to join the discussion on this talk page. Francewhoa (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drupal. The only coverage I've seen is that this is a hosting system for Drupal. Not very independently notable. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 19:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Aegir was planning to host only Drupal sites for the forseable future, a merge would make sense, but the new release, currently in development, will allow Aegir to host any application (due to the provisioner switching from Drush to Ansible). See the Architecture document for details. --Jayden Black (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayden Black: Wikipedia discourages articles trying to predict future events. See WP:CRYSTAL This may also be WP:TOOSOON. To me, based on current coverage, this is at best a merge, but with the available sourcing the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. At lest a merge can save some of the info, and if the coverage grows with the new enhancements, an article can be revisited. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 00:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the new release allows hosting of any application, then a redirect might not make sense and only deletion would do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton: Would you kindly explain how "the available sourcing the article doesn't pass WP:GNG"? Most of the links were replaced with third-party/disconnected references as soon as this issue was raised. If this is still indeed the case, I suppose a merge would make sense for now given that we should represent the current state of things. --Jayden Black (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Passes WP:NPOL(He represented the 3rd District of the Erie County Legislature from 1994-2007 & Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage on his judicial cases.).--PATHSLOPU 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Path slopu: county legislators are not covered by WP:NPOL and I wouldn't particularly a single blurb in a local newspaper crime report significant coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a US county-level politician satisfy NPOL, and the coverage is not particularly in-depth or major to satisfy general GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A county-level position is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL (obviously we're not talking about a state or province-wide office) so there's no presumption of notability to be found here. The first reference links to a list of names and the second to a blurb on a state agency report. I do not consider WP:GNG to be met here, since there's no significant coverage to be found in multiple reliable sources. I also could not find better sources out there to cover this BLP. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lowest level of political office that guarantees an article to every officeholder is the state legislature. At the county level, it might sometimes be possible for a county councillor to clear the bar if they can be really well-sourced, but they are not automatically a "major local political figure" just because they're verifiable as existing — the notability test for officeholders at the county level is the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive article that makes a credible case that he's significantly more notable than most other county councillors. But if he's been the subject of enough press coverage to clear NPOL #2, this article sure isn't showing it: the only two footnotes present here at all are both primary sources that do not constitute support for notability, and there's literally no evidence of real notability-supporting reliable source coverage being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:GNG aside, I have a large problem with the second paragraph in the article, which should be removed if this thing isn't deleted completely. SportingFlyerT·C 01:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense to merge to such as general article as the county. If we made a list article of county legislators, that might be a better way of handling it. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provided sources are all database listings, I was unable to find coverage in reliable sources online (although I was able to find a review of the Punjabi Virsa 2010 concert), does not meet WP:GNG. I had previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by initial editor with justification i just removed the proposed for deletion tag because this article is true information about an live album series and happens every year with same title name and different year, as the links are provided, which misses the point that sources demonstrating notability do not appear to exist for this concert. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did WP:BEFORE, but I wasn't able to find any secondary sources that talks about the event. All sources in the article are primary, which does not meet WP:GNG. If it's a list, there's a lack of prose in the article. INeedSupport:3 23:51, 31 May 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense to merge to such as general article as the county. If we made a list article of county legislators, that might be a better way of handling it. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense to merge to such as general article as the county. If we made a list article of county legislators, that might be a better way of handling it. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Slightly complicated discussion. By headcount we are at 8 delete, 1 weak delete, 2 weak keep and 1 keep. By argument, it seems pretty clear that WP:GNG is not satisfied here, so any keep arguments would have to rely on WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF and more specifically with the seventh point of NPROF, "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"; on whether NAUTHOR is met it seems like the opinion is heading towards "not" on account of there being little evidence of it. With regards to the NPROF#7 claim, it seems like there is one editor (or perhaps two) who endorses it and several more which dispute it on the grounds that the coverage is too rarefied/shallow. At the end of the day, this looks like a consensus that the notability criteria are not satisfied as the valid delete arguments are more widely shared. For the sake of completeness, the history of the article isn't really a deletion criterium except in particular cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
If you came here because subject of page posted this discussion on Twitter [1], 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.
Is an academic who has done academic things but I see no evidence of notability - there are a couple of academic reviews of her books - but that is normal almost trivial stuff in the life of an academic and we'd be a directory if we listed all academic who had a book (I've got three can I have a page?). Cameron Scott (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not her books that count, but the reviews of her books. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron I added a section on my public scholarship, in case that makes me more notable to you. I have other things to add too, perhaps the page would seem more impressive if it had more information? Here is my personal page: http://www.jennifermercieca.com/
Delete. Little indication of adequate citations yet on GS to pass WP:Prof. Not enough sources yet for WP:GNG. Far too early, try again in ten years time. I have not let the sick-making promotionalism of the BLP affect my views. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep GS citation counts are largely irrelevant for the humanities. We have multiple reviews of multiple books, which is a good sign for passing WP:AUTHOR, but the second book is a co-edited volume, so it's not as strong a case as it could be. So, "weak keep" it is. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fallacy that GS citation counts are largely irrelevant for the humanities. Like can be compared with like, and in this case her citations are abysmally below those of her academic peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It's not a fallacy. There's no point comparing "like with like" if the evaluation of each side of that comparison is non-informative. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this subject with 262 cites on GS with other American historians (two female, one male) with 267,000 GS cites [2] or this[3] with 12,000 cites or this[4] with 6970 cites. An informative comparison can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
You're asking that scholars have to be as influential as Hannah Arendt or Barbara Tuchman in order to be wiki-notable? That's like wanting to delete every biography of any scientist less well-known than Stephen Hawking. Sorry to sound confrontational, but I'm genuinely baffled by the comparison it seems that you are proposing. And I am generally disquieted by the reliance upon a single product from a single company to evaluate all academics across the board. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a highly cited field I expect more than 262 citations on GS. On WoS I find 6 citations, I can't find anything about her at all on Publons. Maybe I am not using the databases correctly. Scopus gives 67 citations and an h-index of 5. The data need checking, but whatever the case, the numbers are vastly lower than for notable peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, it's me again. If the weighing mechanism is book reviews, then you can find my books reviewed here:
Justin S. Vaughn & Jennifer R. Mercieca, The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama Presidency (edited volume) (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2014).
Reviewed: Presidential Studies Quarterly, December, 2014; Perspectives on Politics, September, 2015; Res Rhetorica, February, 2015, Quarterly Journal of Speech, June 2016. Cited in Wikipedia entry for “East Room (White House).”
Jennifer R. Mercieca, Founding Fictions (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2010).
Reviewed: Choice, November, 2010; Journal of Communication, April, 2011; Journal of American History, December, 2011; Journal of the Early Republic, Spring, 2012; Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Spring, 2012; Communication Review, Winter, 2012; The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Spring, 2013; Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Spring, 2013; Rhetorica, Spring, 2013.
You might want to look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and remember that anyone looking you up will know that you had to argue hard for article about yourself, rather than wait for an admiring student or fellow scholar to write one. It can be sort of embarrassing. Not to mention the ongoing problems peope with pages have to deal with, as outlined in the article I just linked to. This is meant as friendly advice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read several of the reviews. this one in the The Journal of American History is representative Messer, Peter C. The Journal of American History 98, no. 3 (2011): 824-25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41510156. "The author is a communications scholar, and her interdisciplinary approach is the book's greatest strength but also its weakness... . Merciea.. makes a series of generalizations... few historians believe, as Merciea apparently does, thst the colonists adhered to the theory of the divine right of kings. Her implications that the Antifederalists essentially disappeared after the Constitutions ratification and that no non-elite American had a good reason to support the Constitution will provi=oke bewilderment... Mercieca's argument that the Jacksonian era saw the creation of a disempowered citizery stands at odds with the well-chronicled explosion of reform movements in the same years... The book's rhetorically informed method and its provocative argument that democratic rhetoric in the United States supports an undemocratic political philosophy (or fiction) are intriguing, but its historical and historiographic simplicity compromise its appeal and utility." Yes, it got reviewed, but the tone of the reviews probably explains why it has not beed much engaged with during a decade when the topic she writes about had been teh subject of so many journal articles and books. the topics popularity probably explains why editors assigned it for review. My question is whether we want to keep every page that an associate professor who has written one not-particularly-well-received and non-impactful book writes about her- or himself? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of fringe material, but of an associate professor of rhetoric not being an expert in history. That's nothing unusual in the way that current academic world values depth of knowledge in a narrow field over breadth of knowledge in a wider field. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#C7. I really didn't think much of this article for a while, but E.M.Gregory's comment above intrigued me to look into this more. I found 10 more references we can use for the article (I stopped at 10, I can find more upon request). My reading of this is that Mercieca is frequently cited by news organizations when they want to talk about political rhetoric. Writing articles on Academics is admittedly not my area of expertise, but I am like 90% confident that the subject meets that specific portion of NPROF. I almost WP:REFBOMBed this article to an absurd degree just wading through all the times she's been quoted. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 04:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always have difficulty evaluating WP:PROF#C7, but I tend to think that if the media frequently relies upon a person as a go-to expert, we best serve the public by saying who that person is. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That need is satisfied by the description media use: associate professor in communications at A&M University. Nothing further is needed, as it would be if she held some sort of crank or FRINGE view. She does not. Merely, she wrote a book about political rhetoric in the early American republic without knowing much about the politics or history of the period.E.M.Gregory (talk)
If she's been criticized for writing about a topic outside her lane, then that's an argument in favor of having an article, since that's not a thing that her tagline on a chyron would say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are reviews, and we do keep authors who get reviewed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the review. The books of most humanities academics get reviewed somewhere, whether they are good or bad. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete Whilst reviews are reviews I am not really seeing a lot here. I really am not sure that reviews alone are enough, there has to be some indication of importance. I note WP:AUTHOR really does not say anything about reviews.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability under PROF, AUTHOR or GNG. --Tataral (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The investigations of User:E.M.Gregory and the citations show that the subject's academic work is not taken seriously by her peers. Therefore there is no pass of WP:Prof. However, due to her media activities, there may be a pass of the less onerous WP:GNG. If the BLP, is kept there should be mention in it of the mixed response to her published work like the extract given by User:E.M.Gregory. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I have to say that I find the lack of information rather concerning about her if she is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only material we can source about her, beyond name, rank and serial number, are reviews of her sole book. Her articles on rhetoric appear to have made little impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book, which has had demonstrably little impact on a field of studies, the rhetoric of nationhood, that has been hot in the years since she published. If a book matters, other scholars engage with it, they don't just namecheck it. No has shown that ANY of the the many, many books and articles on the rhetoric of nation building in the early American Republic that have done more than namecheck Merciaca. Or that the handful of journal articles on which she is first author have been impactful. This is NOT what scholarly notability looks like. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying comment. To address some points made above, I'd like to clear things up. First, I don't think this article is notable based on the WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage which is not to be found here. I also do not think the subject meets the normal NPROF route. There are no significantly quantifiable reviews of her first book. This is where I !vote to keep comes in. As XOR'easter describes, WP:PROF#C7 is made for the situations we have found ourselves in. We have an individual who has clearly portrayed themselves as an academic, but such individual lacks the academic "chops" (if you will) to be considered notable in that field. The alternative route to notability (from my reading of PROF#C7) is becoming notable for frequent media appearances in your capacity as an academic. Reliable sources in the news media have frequently cited her contributions and thoughts, but her colleagues in the academic field have thus far dismissed several of her claims. The solution here is not to delete the article outright, but instead it is to naturally portray what it is she believes and the critical response to it (both good and bad). I hope that all makes sense. I still can provide more sources if needed... –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what she believes, is is what anyone else believes that matters. When (and if) she becomes notable as a media personality then weer can recreate, but we do not create (or keep) articles because someone might one day be notable. What we should never do is base notability on what someone thinks of themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I didn't say Mercieca might one day be notable I have asserted she is notable (as in today). I also don't think we should base an article on what she thinks of herself, I am trying to make clear we should write an article based off what WP:RS have said. That is a huge distinction. Incoming refbomb.[1] I tried to avoid this scenario. To emphasize my point, I will provide some sources. First she was quoted by a few local news organizations.[2][3][4] Here she is with the Guardian (video interview)[5] Quoted by a Washington Post columnist (Opinion).[6] Twice interviewed by NPR.[7][8] Do people still like Vice News?[9] I also found this interview by Review 31 (United Kingdom).[10] I even found her interviewed in Minnesota.[11] According to her website, there's even more out there (BBC World News... Diane Rehm, The New York Times, CNN... Australia's ABC Radio, Slate, USA Today, and many other outlets throughout the United States and Worldwide. How many quotes and interviews in national publications would you say it takes to meet WP:ACADEMIC#C7? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the problem, the Guardian is a newspaper, not a TV channel. The first NPR source has her being asked one question, just one. Its all a bit too trivial to really be considered notability. Moreover sources have to be about her, most of these are not, she is a talking head (and not a very important one).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of meeting GNG. I already said this article would not meet that guideline. The subject specific guideline clearly states: Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. This does not have to with whether something is or is not a newspaper nor the subjective importance of her work. She's frequently quoted and that is all it takes to meet this guideline. I didn't write it, nor do I necessary agree with it in all cases. It's just the standard we have in this case, though. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can get more sources if you want. I just didn't think it was necessary at this point. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the number, its the overall quality. I am not seeing anything like "news night" or a major piece in the Time. It all smacks of very much Z list.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the number, nor the range of media comments by Merciaca is all that impressive. Especially for someone who is trying so hard to be a public intellectual, posting incessantly on Twitter [5] - but has a piddling 5,700 followers. She is available to give the media a quote on everything and anything - real experts are not. They stay carefully within the range of material they actually are experts on. Then there is this [6], appeared on 27 May, the day this discussion began, asking her Twitter followers to keep her Wikipedia page up. The page was clearly created by an SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Twitter thing, assuming good faith I don't think that was canvassing more like novelty. She immediatly tweeted replies to it likethis. How we operate is either very interesting or very boring to most people. I don't have interest in putting my name constantly out there, but I informed her via twitter about TWA. In regards to publications and followers, I don't know. The whole point of this criterion seems to be for academics who are better at getting media buzz than necessarily being top-of-their field. The Guardian, Vice News, Salon, and All Things Considered (second NPR) pieces were pretty in depth. The twitter follower thing is irrelevant imo. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention, the user who created it isn't an SPA. They're a student and were responding to this request. This really seems like a natural creation rather than COI. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request[7] was originally made by IP 128.194.241.241 at 16.47 on 5 July 2017. The IP geolocates to Texas A&M University. It is surprising that a student editor should, as his first article, have started with such a complex topic as a BLP about an academic. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
BLPs about academics are not necessarily all that complicated. Where do they work, what are they known for, where did they go to school — there's an easy pattern to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy in this case, it seems. Skill is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff and it wasn't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps she wasn't canvasing, but a Texas-registered IP did add books and sources to the page [8], as did this infrequent user [9] this one [10]. Odd. Very odd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the exact thing we would want? People to improve the article? It doesn't seem odd to me at all that an article was nominated for deletion, someone tweeted about it, and people are now trying to address the concerns brought up here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no, there may well be COI (if they are a student of this person they have a close tie, if they are a... (well I think you get the point)). Also if the fetch up here to vote (so far they have not) that would be an issue. But if they are adding quality sourcing that would not be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to drone on, but Jl.oco99 is a student in Australia (Mercieca is in Texas). There is a remote possibility that they somehow have a COI, but AGF kind of diminishes that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just, I'm trying to imagine a new user, a student in Australia, deciding to create a wikipedia page about a little known American professor of communications. And to imagine a series of new users, very occassional users, and an IP address adding content to this page on an obscure specialist in political rhetoric.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's take this from the top:
On 5 July 2017, 128.194.241.241 (registered to Texas A&M) requests an article on this subject. This could literally have been anyone with access to a campus computer mind you and before any current public facing social media account is registered to the subject.
That requests stays up for more than two years because she is found possibly notable enough.
Four days ago, on 27 May 2019, a student from Australia makes a Wikipedia article after drafting it in their sandbox.
Once in the mainspace, it is almost immediately tagged for speedy deletion under WP:A7 by QEDK. 2 minutes later, admin SoWhy denies the CSD on the basis it might be notable. SoWhy writes to qedk on his talk page, and this was where the article caught my attention.
At some point Mercieca notices all the commotion and tweets about it.
Some of her twitter followers react surprising positively by avoiding the deletion debate and instead go straight to improving the article as to address the concerns here.
There is no reason to be suspicious of anyone besides the initial IP who made the request 2 years ago. Mind you it could have been anyone who knew the subject at the time, so let's just assume good faith as to only discuss the merits of the article's inclusion. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to take this to AfD at some point but I totally forgot (thanks, Cameron!). There's two particularly problematic things, one is the fact that this article needs to be shoved down for some reason, contested and recontested on arbitrary whims when three editors on three separate occasions have voiced this isn't good enough. Secondly, this was my reply to SoWhy (who said that the decline was because she might be notable and that is not a vote of confidence) and why I feel something is definitely wrong: There is something weird going on, I checked the GNews hits and literally all of them have the same Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political discourse and co-editor of “The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama... statement. On further opening the link, the given article has nothing to do with the professor. Two more sources repeat explains Texas A&M communications professor Jennifer Mercieca, author of a forthcoming book on Trump's rhetoric. which are opinion pieces and not the news organization themselves. My point is, the majority of the 2000 GNews hits are fake, you can check it yourself as well. I care less about the impending mysterious IPs coming down on us, as I think this article does not qualify WP:GNG and WP:NPROF and that's that. --qedk (t桜c) 03:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you seem to suggest, GNews can be gamed, that is important and disturbing. A deeper analysis and hints on detecting fakes would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
How about checking whether what qedk says is actually true? You will then find that it is not. What we have is someone who obviously makes herself known to the media as a source of quotes, and then a short description of her is given is given with the many quotes from her reported by the media. Nobody is gaming or faking anything here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious right now? Open your goddamn eyes and check GNews instead of blatantly calling other editors liars. But I will take a special interest and prove you wrong right now so that you quit with your terrible attitude. A very slow link for you to understand before accusing. --qedk (t桜c) 15:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have looked at the Google News results, and the first dozen or so that I can read (some don't like my use of Adblock Plus, which I'm not prepared to stop, and some are blocked by American paranoia about EU law) mostly quote Mercieca and give such a short description of her. This doesn't make them "fake" in any way, but simply not the type of sources that can substantiate WP:GNG. The only attitude that is terrible here is your continual arguing with experienced editors who point out your mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: That isn't the type of reference qedk is referring to. There is a bug with one (or a few) of the websites that quotes the subject in a story. The bug (or maybe it was intentional, idk) indexes multiple stories on every webpage. This means that even though Mercieca is never mentioned, it still comes up as a hit for that website. This is the "fake" result QEDK is referring to. In my opinion, that has more to do with some of the websites themselves and not this deletion discussion since GNews results really are not a valid rationale for deletion one way or another imo. That's just me though. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflicts) qedk said that "literally all of them" have this problem, so just one that doesn't (and, as I say, I looked at about a dozen) falsifies that claim. We should be discussing whether the reviews of Mercieca's work by her peers, who study rhetoric rather than history or politics, are sufficient for a pass of WP:PROF, rather than fake claims of fakery. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definite lie, I said "literally all of them" quote Mercieca with the same quote, not that all of them are fake. I said that the "majority" of them are fake. Anyone with a decent level of grasp over the English language would understand that "literally" is often used metaphorically but sure, go ahead, use it with your other pointless strawman arguments to rile up other editors. --qedk (t桜c) 17:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is also untrue that all of them use the same text ,which was what I meant by "this problem" above. Even if the vast majority of 2000 Google News hits do so then they can be ignored, but you are left with quite a few that do not. And don't use the word "literally" unless you mean it literally. It makes discussion with you very difficult. Your wording made it look as if these hits had been faked or gamed in some way, presumably by Mercieca, and at least one editor interpreted it in this way. It's a pretty commonplace occurrence for Google News not to interpret things correctly, and we shouldn't build a conspiracy theory on that. I note that I have at no point accused you of lying, but you accused me directly of such in your comment above. Please don't do that. You seem to have a problem coping with disagreement. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about checking whether what qedk says is actually true? You will then find that it is not. This is your statement, agreed? And now you say, I note that I have at no point accused you of lying... So no, Phil, you did accuse me of lying and then lied when you said you didn't accuse me of lying. So yeah, quit it. I don't have a problem coping with disagreements at all, it's just people who need to use ad hominem and attack the person (read WP:NPA) that really bother me, so yeah definite apologies (not sarcastic, but just fwiw) that I treat you the same. --qedk (t桜c) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To lie is to deliberately make an untrue statement. I said that you made an untrue statement, but not that it was deliberate. You seem to have a problem with English comprehension, such as the meanings of "literally" and "lie", as well as with coping with disagreement. All of my comments, here and elsewhere, have been about your edits, not about you as a person, so they are not ad hominem comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could quote before and after where your comments go beyond content and into the kind of editor you think someone is, and it's not just me. I do not wish to do that for the sole purpose that this discussion is not about your conduct. I bear you no ill-will but you really need to quit it and not argue behind the facade of the English language, and yes, I know my temperament here has not been particularly peaceful but that's primarily due to the disposition you've put me into. If at any point you wish to bury the hatchet, do let me know and I'll be forthcoming. --qedk (t桜c) 19:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil knows very well the point I am making, assuming bad faith is how it goes for Phil. It is very clear for anyone who opens the links that the article with the hit does not contain the statement being quoted, which means that yes, it is fake. WP:IDHT is just a classic demonstration of the issue at hand, despite me literally showing you the pages and the hits and the difference between the two. So yes, a majority of them are fake and that's that. I do not need you to validate the facts, for the sole reason that it's already a fact. --qedk (t桜c) 17:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The version I listed for G11 [11] was in my opinion a good G11; I think it would have been better to have let it get deleted and started over rather than to build on an obvious piece of PR. But now that it's here, we should consider notability without regard to the previous history. Eugene Garfield , who invented citation analysis in academic subjects, refused to include that field in Web of Science, and I have somewhere a letter from him to me explaining why: they are useless for impact factor because they appear over too great a period and impact factor calculations depend only on the 2 years after publication.( Arts and Humanities Citation index was added much later to the ISI family of citation indexes as a result of competitive pressure from Scopus, which included all fields in order to establish itself. ) However, his reason does not necessarily apply to all possible uses of citation analysis. , and comparing relative citations over time can be reasonable ; this is especially true when the work in the humanities depends upon journal articles--this was very rare 40 years ago, but is more common now.
Looking at her books first, she is the author of only one book for the other , she is coeditor of a collection of essays, which counts for much less. Looking at citation, her book has been cited 52 times, each of her several articles about 20. This is moderately respectable but not necessarily enoguh for notability in the subject in comparison to other notable but not famous writers on communication.
The discussion aboce of the actual merits of her work is irrelevant. So is the discussion on whether she is quoted enoguh to make her notable. Any academic who publishes anything on a current topic will be quoted. What is needed for the GNG is comprehensive discussions. What is needed for PROF as apublic intellectual, likewise--it has to be proven by actual reliable sources saying so. Scientific influence can be shown b ycitations, but public influence requires the same sort of references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, as WP:BIO.bIt cannot be inferred by being quoted. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG - many academics write a book and essays but it's not clear that either she or they have received substantive coverage to establish notability or impact as an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per E.M.Gregory and DGG. I am not looking for a "more impressive" article but informative content on a clearly notable subject. As for as I understand the trek to a position of professor or tenured associate professor depends largely on writing, co-writing, and co-editing collections of academic essays as being considered an expert and "published" in a particular field. Just "co-editing" does not seem to exceed a minimum of notability to pass WP:PROF, certainly the one book is controversial for passing WP:NAUTHOR (not even listed in the lead) and User:QEDK questioning of WP:GNG seems valid. I have not nor intend to view this in some political argument light as presented by User talk:MJL but "might be notable" is a BS argument that should never be credited. The burden of evidence for citations falls on those wishing for inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we should look for what is "now" over what "might be or happen". If there is clear notability then it seems this can be clearly shown and I don't see that this has happened. Otr500 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: I am very confused by your understanding of my reasons to keep. I never said that she "might be notable." I said that she is notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C7. I provided 11 sources to backup that point and have consistently offered more upon request (because there is more). The one time I said the words "might be notable" was in quoting someone else because I wanted to give a factually accurate statement of what they said. I also have conceded, several times now in fact, that the subject would not meet WP:GNG nor any other criterion of WP:NPROF. Please don't take me out of context. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 17:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I did NOT take anything you said out of context. It is pretty obvious the words I used was in response to the quote you listed that an admin used and I disagree with that type of statement. I also don't think your arguments that "She's frequently quoted and that is all it takes to meet this guideline." qualifies for satisfying WP:ACADEMIC#C7 to allow a pseudo biography. Apparently I am not alone. Otr500 (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced article on a non-notable record label. They actually haven't released for any of those notable, recognizable singers/groups mentioned in the article: a quick search shows they have merely produced unnoficial CD-roms and other merchandise of the artists. No sources found to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator has this exactly right. Can't find any reliable sources, so GNG/NCORP not met. No evidence the label has had any significant impact on musical culture, so non-notable by any criteria. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 13:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles should have references and this doesn't.Catfurball (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
probably keep. I have begun adding book reviews as I scroll through the ~1,500 hits his relatively unique name gets in a Proquest news archive search. Note that at least two of his books were illustrated by Allen Sapp. Proquest also brings up a great deal of news coverage. It looks to me as though this one probably just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Third party refs now include Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC Books, The Frisky, Calgary Herald, and Times Colonist. Did the nominator bother doing a WP:BEFORE? I say based on this, the nomination ought to be disqualified already on procedural grounds. Keep! XavierItzm (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANNKeep this page was a very brief stub. that and the fact that David Bouchard is a surprisingly common name may have led to the WP:BEFORE Fail. I have improved the page somewhat, lots more sources exist, in WP:RS in French and English.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NAUTHOR and indeed NAUTHOR being a shortcut to notability has been demonstrated by the HEY improvement to this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my proposal now there are plenty of proper references.Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 28 May 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. Seems like the discussion here boils down to whether this concept exists in other religions and whether it thus isn't original research, whether this is a well written page, and whether it is notable in Wikipedia terms. On the first question, it seems like it's debatable whether the concept is shared among the cited religions, the second as noted isn't really a deletion rationale as has been noted, on the third it seems like there is no evidence. Thus delete, given that no sources have been provided (or even suggested) that discuss this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:GNG. This article only re-states sentences from other articles specific to particular traditions. This subject hasn't really been discussed across faiths s everything here is redundant to sola scriptura, Quranism, Karaism, and Nichiren Buddhism. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a common aspect found in various religions. This common aspect is noted in the articles on sola scriptura and quranism. I found it fascinating, so I made an article about it. Oct13 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oct13: You've been an editor since 2011. You should know to read WP:N before just writing about something because you find it fascinating. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "mentioned" on those pages in the sense that you recently added it [12], [13] as a "See also" link. Sheesh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this to the point. From my experience in editing religious articles for three years on Wikipedia now, my impression is that literalism and fundamentalism (in the scholarly sense) with regard to scriptures is found in many religious traditions, and that such phenomenon have been studied scholarly and from multi-religious perspectives. The title of this article is quite awkward though. I'd say Keep.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 20:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you bring any actual sources?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transform to disambiguation page simply listing those articles it has until now copied from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe not. I am not at all persuaded that this phrase is in wide use to describe streams of Buddhism, Judaism or Islam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tgeorgescu. Oct13 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But can you find any scholarly or other WP:RS discussions to support the concept that this is a thing? I mean scholars who write that a similar sola scripturs approach is found in these four theologically distinctive religions? to me this begins to look like a concept and phrase being pushed by lone Wikipedia user.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs some credible resources to support the notion without appealing to it, such as something academic about the concept itself and how it is common across multiple belief systems. If a few of these sorts of sources were added, then I agree and suggest Keep --- FULBERT (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY and WP:TNT Article is too simplistic to keep. This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther and simplistically – and with very little support from scholarly sources – imposes it on Buddhism, Judaism and Islam.
Buddhism: The description of Nichiren Buddhism as adhering to Sola scriptura is wrong. I am happy to be corrected by scholars of Buddhism.
Judaism: section is nonsense. All of traditional/Orthodox Judaism believes that scripture is authoritative, Kararites differ from mainstream Judaism on the method of interpreting scripture. Then comes the sourced sentence: "Karaite Jews interpret their scripture according to peshat, the plain meaning of the text understood by the ancient Israelite authors". In fact, the Kraites were/are one of the competing sects of "ancient Israelite authors," all of whom conceived themselves as understandig the text correctly.
Christianity: This concept started with Luther, who was a Christian. Page fails to present a sophisticated understanding to the concept in Christianity.
Islam: page asserts: "Quranism is the Islamicsect that believes the Quran is the sole religious authority in the sharia and rejects the hadiths." Where to start? Perhaps with the assertion that Quranism is a "sect", rather than a scholarly and theological approach.
E.M.Gregory, there is in Buddhist history what Gregory Schopen called "the Cult of the Book", which is a trend in Mahayāna Buddhist schools like Nichiren to devote themselves and pay homage to a scripture in similar style to how other Buddhists would pay homage to a Buddha image or a religious monument. Though I am uncertain whether depicting the Nichiren Buddhists as accepting scripture alone as the source of authority is completely correct, it is not far from the truth. See also the sources at Faith in Buddhism#Tiantai, Tendai and Nichiren Buddhism. What's your take on this, JimRenge?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther ... imposes it on Buddhism: Buddhism was influenced much by Protestant ideas during the 19th and 20th century. This historical trend is known as Buddhist modernism or Protestant Buddhism. See also Faith in Buddhism#Buddhist modernism. Part of this was an emphasis on scripture to defend Buddhism against criticism from Christian missionaries.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment This article was such a blatant violation of WP:ESSAY, so poorly written, that at first I did not look at sources on the page, rather, I looked to see if I could source it. I just looked at that page and I am appalled. The Buddhism section is single sourced to a Welsh memoir about building Buddhism in Wales. The Judaism section is single sourced to a "collection of sermons and tracts" published in 1788.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but quality of article does not pertain to notability of subject.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 08:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with E.M.Gregory, This new, single-editor page takes a doctrine, Sola scriptura that originated with Martin Luther ... imposes it on Buddhism and other religions. Without multiple independent reliable secondary sources, the article proposes an original idea: Scripture alone the source of authority is "a common aspect found in various religions." The idea appears to be plausible but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:Synthesis). JimRenge (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename religious textual literalism such as biblical literalism --E.3 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK E.3. You have won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that such an article on religious textual literalism can be written and adequately sourced, but there has been no evidence offered that it can be. Meanwhile, the page as it now stands is so woefully inadequate as to be a disgrace to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E.3, Ret.Prof, and FULBERT: I'm sorry; why are you choosing to keep an article that doesn't exist? I've nominated the article you see now, not a possible article that could be written if somebody gathered sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Deletion isn't a form of cleanup. I think the article should have discussion of the title and then improved, Reason for deletion #6 seems to be your closest suggestion but surely there's reliable sources out there. Just need to find contributors to find them! --E.3 (talk)
I agree that deletion is not cleanup. If someone would like to write an article on religious textual literalism and provide sources to show the subject is generally notable, that's fine. What we have here is an article about scripture alone and I haven't found sources that make the subject pass WP:GNG. You might imagine such an article but without sources, it does not and shall not exist. The idea that "surely there's reliable sources out there" without even two such sources provided is wishful thinking. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two different concepts. It is not an asset to the project when editors write pages, or propose to add pages about concepts regarding which htey have not invested the time to gain some degree of mastery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they appear to be different concepts. JimRenge (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who wish to keep the article, there should first be agreement on how the principle of scripture onlyshould be called when applied to any religion, following reliable sources. The current title of the article is awkward. If and when such a name can be found and agreed on, notability can be checked. Religious literalism has been rejected, any other suggestions?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 18:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is not the choice of a name. It is the fact that your assertion that there is a specific, reliably defined, theological approach to scripture shared by reliably defined groups of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians is WP:UNSOURCED. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):Meanwhile, I have done some digging, and found evidence of discussions of the authority of scripture throughout the multi-religious spectrum: Christian[15], Buddhist[16] and multi-religious.[17] But I couldn't find any scholarly discussion of what would amount to sola scriptura in other religions. In Sri Lanka during the Buddhist revival, as well as in Burma, there was more emphasis on reading Buddhist texts by oneself as opposed to having a monk explain them to you, and some scholars like Gombrich in his book Buddhism Transformed[18] have connected this with influence from Protestantism: "[P]rotestant Buddhism undercuts the importance of the religious professional ... the distinction between the sangha (monastic community) is thus blurred ..." It is now for us to decide whether such similarities are sufficient to consider this article, or the phenomenon it describes, as notable.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article is too simplistic to be in mainspace, but the general topic is viable. It needs rewriting by someone who understands the concept and how the various religions apply it--several such people have commented here. We did not 12 years ago have a good way to dealwith incomplete butpotentially viable article, but now we do: Draft Space. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Upcoming film that has been on Wikipedia for nearly 3 years now (oddly even has a running time), I can't seem to find ANY info on this other then Wiki mirrors. Wgolf (talk) 19:32, 27 May 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. However, given that the group nomination led to some mix of opinion about individual pages, it should be acceptable to separately renominate individual albums for a more focused discussion if desired. RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Recreation of a previously deleted article but still lacking in reliable sources: the only independent source is a notice that ten years ago a guitar magazine voted Mr. Bundy as one to watch, and that's it. The decade since then has brought absolutely no in-depth coverage whatsoever in reliable independent sources, apart from this [19], which appears to be mainly a primary source interview. Richard3120 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because Mr. Bundy's albums are equally non-notable – none of the articles are sourced, and no reliable independent sources have been found:
*Weak Delete There is some stuff that hovers between run-of-the-mill promotional/appearance and something a bit more in-depth [20]. And recognition, albeit just once as a "newcomer" 12 years ago, from Acoustic Guitar Magazine. But 2 small things it's not enough for indisputable evidence of RS recognition. If someone can dig up more I'd consider changing to Keep. As for the albums, I'm not sure these non-notable small label releases minus RS reviews merit their own pages, even if this one about the artist winds up being kept. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck Weak Delete, as promised, and changed to keep per additional sources found. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once a subject is notable it does not lose that notability = just like Noah Raby. Will try to WP:HEY this article. The subject is well known and notable. WP:ATD should be considered. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubbad85: you're correct that a subject does not lose notability. But do you have any sources to show that the subject was "well known and notable" in the first place? Richard3120 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120 This afd needed a thorough WP:BEFORE. The Subject is extremely well known and notable. I have started the clean up and references. These things take time... WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 02:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The magazine Guitar Player covers him at [21] and interviews him at [22]. So with that and the coverage mentioned by the nominator, that makes two reliable sources giving him significant coverage. The General Notability Guidelines are met. I see a lot of results to sort through if anyone wants to find more to work on the article with. [23] Google news search for his name and either acoustic or music to make sure its the musician. DreamFocus 04:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already cited. WP:Not paper. No apparent compliance with WP:Before That article can be improved, but the test should be what it can become, not what it is presently. WP:I don't like it is no reason to inflict the Wikipedia equivalent of capitol punishment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, 7&6=thirteen, I most certainly did do WP:BEFORE, and considered many of the sources mentioned above to be very poor-quality ones, which is why I felt the subject failed WP:GNG – they are mostly primary source interviews or gig listings. I don't think the Guitar Player sources are at all useful, for example: an interview and a video both demonstrating the use of a piece of equipment, no biographical information whatsoever. But I'm happy to go with the articles in the Colorado Springs Gazette, The Daily Record and MetroWest Daily News to tidy the article up, and then I'll withdraw the nomination – although I think the albums should still be redirected. But I have no idea where you got the impression that I don't like the subject, and find your equating of an AfD nomination made in good faith to capital punishment pretty ridiculous, to be honest. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended. When I said you did not do WP:before I meant no insult. I WP:AGF. Rather, the article as presently constituted now shows lots of WP:SIGCOV by multiple WP:RS. Which you missed. I'm not saying you didn't try, only that you whiffed in the attempt. I find that doing a search through bing.com frequently uncovers sources that are missed by google.com and its variants (which are listed at the top of this page). Those may require you to go through multiple pages. Indeed, merely looking for "Trace Bundy" may be less effective than "Trace Bundy Guitar". I hope that assuages your feelings.
Note: I have tidied up the article using some of the sources suggested above and I am happy to withdraw this AfD. I still plan to redirect the albums to Mr. Bundy's page, as they appear not to be individually notable, unless anyone can find sources for them as well. Thank you to everyone who found sources and made suggestions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist page - Keep the artist page. I think we need a separate discussion on the album/song pages before they are redirected (the history of these pages should not be deleted if the artist page is kept). If this page can not be kept, it should be redirected to Sungha Jung#Performances. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jax 0677, the page will be kept because as I've stated above, I'm withdrawing the nomination. I don't know what history of the albums you plan on keeping – they are literally just track listings and nothing else, and completely unsourced. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Richard3120:, the default for no consensus is keep. Barring a consensus to delete the album articles outright, the album article history should be kept in some form. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: then I'll have to renominate the albums separately, because there really is no article history for them at all. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure how many of the subject's albums are notable. I spent a bit of time on the latest release Elephant King. Richard3120 has been there to see the start of references and layout...In regard to the albums I would say WP:NOTPAPER and WP:RUSHDELETE It would take a very long time to slog through these stubs and make them relevant. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubbad85: I'm genuinely in no rush to renominate the albums – as you've probably seen, I've been trying to help out on Elephant King, rather than deleting it. Richard3120 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120 I agree. I guess I am not confident I can do enough rapid repair on the articles. I started some on the "Adapt" album. I will take a break. Sorry for the snippy WP:... Lubbad85 (☎) 00:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the Bundy bio, which is crap at the moment but seems to be on a notable enough topic, but redirect all the unsourced album stubs, and trout all the blanket keep !votes based on sources found for one of the articles up for deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the musician, delete the albums. The album articles are a bit promotional and I've only been able to find reviews or honestly any third party discussing Elephant King, but I'm not sure those reviews are necessarily independent. Other than that it's just page after page of music database regurgitation, which isn't that uncommon for a not very notable artist. Bundy himself arguably passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 23:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the bio page, lose the rest. He has 2x independent news media here, but all mentions appear to be local to Colorado as far as I can tell: here & here
A Note: since it is a bit hard to vote on individual album keep/delete, I want to suggest that we KeepElephant King. The album article can be/is sourced and the other albums I have no confidence in being able to reference. To blanket delete all of the albums may not be a good answer WP:PRESERVE. Perhaps a redirect on the other albums and keep on Elephant King. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right now Elephant King contains two pieces of sourced information, both quotes, of which one is from a review in a local publication in Boulder, Colorado, and the other is from a website that is apparently not notable enough for us to have an article on it. Furthermore, it's almost as bad an offended as the aforementioned "O Night Divine" when it comes to the title, and so whether or not it is kept it will need to be moved and the current base title redirected to an unrelated page. I expected to Google it and find a lot of stuff about Babar the Elephant, but it seems there was significantly more on The Elephant King (2018 film), which in turn is not even the primary topic (as far as Wikipedia currently indicates) for its own title; I suspect we will probably need it to be a disambiguation page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There's a an obvious consensus in the keep camp and the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I feel that the sole editors' concern on the delete site has been discussed elsewhere throughout this delete discussion. (non-admin closure)Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please forgive me for not adding external links and references to this article - I'm amazed that it appears to have been untouched in terms of content in the ten years since I created it! Bobo. 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The article subject clearly passes WP:N and WP:CRIN, WP:GNG is irrelevant in this case as the subject passes WP:N. Bobo. 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this proposal now it has references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. This was a bad habit of mine back when I was creating these articles in great haste! If you find any more like this that I have created, please notify me before sending them to AfD, they are easily fixable. Bobo. 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:*Weak delete: Only two references from same source behind a paywall and not marked as such by reasonable citations. One first class appearance for Kent scoring 13 runs ... is this really notable and deserving of an article ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC) ... I'll remove the delete as he seems a substitute for a notable match after willes walked off angrily though the article doen't say this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per the notability guidelines, yes. If you have problems with these notability guidelines, please raise them elsewhere. Feel free to come up with different guidelines which fit your knowledge of the sport and general practices on Wikipedia. Bobo. 21:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I observe the WP:CRINguidelines indicate: N.B.: Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms.. I see no evidence of that and not helped by a poor quality citation highly subject to linkrot which may be assembling statistics.21:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If you have issues regarding the secondary sources which we have been using for the last 15 years, please raise them in the appropriate place - a single AfD article is not going to change this issue.
Of course, if you have qualms relating to the specific info given in such sources, which you can cite via the use of alternative, more reliable sources, feel free to raise them as well. Bobo. 21:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I IAbot'd the article and the dude was a substitute cos Willes round armed and left the ground in high dudgeon (whatever that means) ... which is a bit better than the stats info otherwise described. However [24] implies he played for Marylebone Cricket Club also in 1831 so I'm a little dubious about some accuracies. Overall this seems a case of pulling stats. I've got enough on my plate so I'm disengaging this and leaving it for others.
Keep. This passes current WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines as the player has played at the highest domestic level. Please check CRIN before nominating! StickyWicket (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly this article was still unreferenced when it was sent to AfD. I have since done so. Although, AA, if you find any other of my article creations, especially from 2009 or earlier (isn't it suspicious how people randomly stumble upon these articles after 10 years...) which do not have references, please assist with this. Indeed, there are still dozens of Test cricketers without any citations. Bobo. 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to link to the relevant CI link too - here. This will please the equally vocal ONESOURCE folk... Bobo. 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd have more sympathy if this Carlaw[26] was being used as a biographical source rather than pulling statistics which as I have said above is not my reading of the guidelines. We continually have a single source, wasn't this in a newspaper or something? Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel ONESOURCE is an issue rather than CRIN, then please fix this before voting for something on non-existent criteria - except you do not believe this of course, you are purely voting delete on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. If you "do not believe a subject is notable" despite him passing insultingly basic universal notability criteria, and now being appropriately sourced - then please attempt to get these notability criteria changed through the appropriate channels.
While we're here, can someone please add a reference to his Cricinfo profile here? This will also help to back up our first source, which, as we have needed to point out to people over and over, are independently compiled from and of each other. As I've said above, I'm behind the times in knowing how these things are referenced. Bobo. 04:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is this is simply a pull from statistics which I read as against the guideline. I do observe Roundarm bowling and John Willes (cricketer) and my comment in an earlier reference indicate the key match may have had some signficance and if that is verified and ideally linked one might see more encyclopedic value. I also am concerned Battersbee's contribution to the match result may just be over-emphasised to non-cricketers for that matter. I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP but I need at least some confirmation of what I think I see. Cricket is not particularly my game, but I think I see more re-hashed statistics here than article love. I suppose we do have similar rules for locomotive classes on trains though so I'd better shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NCRIC, having played in a first-class match. I suspect there's more coverage on his school career than his cricket career, that could have been covered in newspapers at the time. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the deleting user in question claims that he was sending schoolmasters up for deletion that he felt did not meet criteria. Not only was the fact that he was a schoolmaster not cited after the extra information was added - which I have now removed - but this obviously bears no weight upon his notability in other areas. I know many schoolmasters but none is actually on Wikipedia... Bobo. 08:55, 28 May 2019
Just to note he appears to have run his own school the "Chislehurst Academy" so more like a modern headmaster than a teacher. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies notability but if it's going to stay more content should be added. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can locate, add, and sufficiently cite this extra content yourself, please feel free to do so. Saying "there is a problem" without being able to suggest a workable solution to the problem is pointless. Bobo. 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly devoted to Thomas so you should do it. Finish what you started :) MaskedSinger (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In terms of notability his apparent use as a substitute for Vinnes is excellent however it seems incompatible with Laws of Cricket and at odds with Substitute (cricket); the latter indicating Substitutes are generally not listed in the official squad list, unless if they were in the starting XI for other games in the wider squad. which might invalidate Battersbee for notability; but thereagain there may be an edge of doubt he was substitute, so I am not sure if he should be in or out.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at this point in the history of cricket the criteria for a match being later judged first-class are massively subjective anyway. There are all sorts of example of matches which would never be classed as such if an objective set of criteria were used, so it's hardly surprising that Battersbee is considered to have played a fc match - things are pretty fast and lose and it often seems to come down to whether or not a scorecard exists and whether something interesting happened in the match.
As for notability, this strikes me as an example of notability being inherited from Willes and the bowling incident - which is famous - more than anything else. It's questionable whether Battersbee should have his own article on the grounds of notability, but there's little chance that this would ever be deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet the WP:GNG; does not have any significant coverage. All the sources provided are mere statistical lists, or inherited notability from the Willes incident. Harriastalk 20:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on his role of running his own school rather than cricket. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say he ran his own school, or did anything significant as a teacher. Rathfelder (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure unless you think "Chislehurst Academy" is not a school. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No-balls declared for failures to update the article rather than talking about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this isn't an actual place and the article useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not an actual region of the CNMI, the author merely took a directional adjective and made it into an official place. Quotes from sources are "The northern islands are high volcanic islands and the southern islands are raised limestone." and "the southern islands in this north-south trending archipelago are limestone, with fringing coral reefs; the northern islands are volcanic, with active volcanoes on several islands". There is in fact a Northern Islands Municipality, but this context-free article basically falls under WP:A11. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep look like without checking properly, AFD was added. According to WP:A11 proposed, someone died on 23 Sep 1986 in an Obviously invented(WP:A11) place.[1] :) These are basic geographical regions commonly recognized.[2]
Lol besides FindAGrave not being a reliable source, it's obvious it's referring to the Northern Islands Municipality. YOU need to check properly for what articles already exist and how they define things. The second source includes Guam in your supposed "Southern Islands, Northern Mariana Islands", but it's a separate entity from the Northern Mariana Islands. These are geographic descriptors, not uniformly defined and recognized regions. And even then, by no means are separate articles needed here! The difference between volcanic and limestone rocks is already mentioned at Northern_Mariana_Islands#Geography, and your worthless stub provides nothing to the reader. Reywas92Talk 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Geographic places are not officially defined and it is term for usage only. We have more than enough evidence for the usage. The second reference is clarifying it with more scientific ways. If you want to enforce your own ideas as a organized user group, instead of the usage, it is up to you to decide. :) Shevonsilva (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you added a bunch of sources that refer to Northern Islands Municipality! Why don't you add some content from references you find to the existing article on this place rather than create empty pages? That article could possibly be moved to remove "Municipality" though, and Southern Islands still deleted. Reywas92Talk 01:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Mere mention in however many places is not enough, particularly for a generic geographical description. @Shevonsilva: could you please be careful to sign your posts, and if you are the article creator you might say so, rather than "strong keep". Imaginatorium (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't explain better than the nominator: "the author merely took a directional adjective and made it into an official place." ReykYO! 14:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Geographic places are not officially defined and it is term for usage only. We have more than enough evidence for the usage. The second reference is clarifying it with more scientific ways. If you want to enforce your own ideas as a organized user group, instead of the usage, it is up to you to decide. :) Shevonsilva (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you posted the same comment twice? I can't really understand what you are saying, but it certainly makes no sense. To make a WP article requires the topic to be notable: if it is a geographic designation it has to be a clearly agreed area. Of course you can find people saying "The eastern/western/northern/southern islands in the group are [ whatever ]" for more or less any group of islands. This does not make the expressions the basis for an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While some islands are by definition farther north or farther south than others, there is no distinct place named "Southern Islands" in the CNMI. There is no information about such a place not more fully addressed in the existing Northern Mariana Islands article. bd2412T 20:52, 29 May 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.
No claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC in this unsourced article. I searched for reviews online to see if I could get it past WP:GNG, but didn't find anything significant. A redirect to the band's article might be an option, but I see that's been CSDed as a G4, so I think this is a delete. GirthSummit (blether) 18:26, 27 May 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 moved to draft. Feel free to reopen or renominate if it's moved back in a similar state. ansh666 20:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to support meeting WP:GNG for this person. The creator has been creating several highly marginable articles around the medical field without showing any real knowledge, strongly suggesting undeclared paid editing is happening. This is a good example of this - minimal sources, reads like a press release and frankly, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "He conjured up this beautiful dream" comes across a bit showy, but his company, Concept Medical, may be worthy of a page soon depending on the outcome of clinical trials (FDA breakthrough device designation). Orville1974 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - author has moved the article back to draft space. I did a copyright check and darn near everything was lifted other websites, including from a blacklisted site. CV delete has been requested and the article is a bare shell. Probably can stay as a draft, but I think the OP (Skgacharya needs a pretty direct warning from an admin to not move anything from draft space again and about copyright. Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 27 May 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.
Dude is known for participating in one season of The Voice (U.S. TV series) only; per WP:BLP1E this should not be a separate article. Suggest redirecting to series and, since that has been reverted thrice by IPs already, semi-protecting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 May 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.
Actor still fails notability thru either WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. Her overall acting résumé hasn't changed a great deal from the last AfD discussion three years ago, still with her role as Hannah in Just Add Magic her only main role to date. Perhaps an additional appearance here and there in TV series since 2016. The article is noting a (future) role in the series Raven's Home, which looks like a recurring one, but the problem is IMDb is the source of that information with it pointing to episodes in season 3, episodes which have no scheduled air date at this time (and with IMDb being an unreliable source, I already am questioning where that information is coming from). Even when/if that role comes to light, it's speculative whether it would be a main role anyway.
I almost took the speedy deletion route with this one, given that the article was deleted under a previous AfD, but since that was three years ago, I felt it wise to return to the AfD venue instead. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has played in 50 episodes of a known series. She was recently cast in Raven's Home, it has 8 episodes listed on IMDb. Subject has a Google Knowledge panel and a google search shows numerous redcarpet interviews and mentions of her on fan websites. I do have to say that i am not familiar with subjects work or her tv series. However article lacks RS and content. Is there any solid RS coverage on her role in Raven's Home? HM Wilburt (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NACTOR says "multiplesignificant roles". Just Add Magic gets Miller to one. Recurring roles are generally not considered to be "significant". Frankly, a much better case can be made for Olivia Sanabia having an article (now main cast on two different TV series), and notice she doesn't have an article yet – the case for Miller having a standalone article is even weaker. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 28 May 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.
Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has only played 41 games in the DEL and 200 minimum is required to pass criteria #2. Tay87 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 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.
A simple google search also shows that subject isn't notable. No deep coverage on subject. The movie he has acted in may be notable but he has a minor role. Does not meet WP:ENT. Just because someone has an IMDB page doesn't automatically make the person notable. Being in a notable movie also doesn't make a person notable. Fails GNG. Article also has no content. HM Wilburt (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhosseintalk 14:10, 27 May 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.
No reviews of this book. Some of the references are unreliable, while the others barely announce the book. This article can't be converted to a BLP because it would fail WP:BLP1E. wumbolo^^^ 19:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not enough here to establish notability NCPTalk 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhosseintalk 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The ISBN led me to Amazon. There are some "editorial reviews" by what could be RS, it's not the same idea as "customer reviews". OTOH the publisher reported by Amazon is "BookBaby", and on CD Baby I found a hint that BookBaby is a "part of the newly-formed DIY Media Group". On dewiki a book on demand would be handled as speedy, here you have a chance to check how bad it is: Six references, ignoring the bad HuffPost + bad BuzzFeed. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhosseintalk 14:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there is no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes and the Green Cine review in the article is a members review page of a defunct movie streaming service, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
There doesn't appear to be anything about this bank to make it more worthy of note than any other bank. It exists, it is a bank, it has assets, and yes, it has even been discussed in some secondary sources. We require that articles about political candidates give evidence of coverage above and beyond what any candidate would automatically get in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article— if we hold that standard to things like banks, then this article is one we should probably delete. How many employees they have (not an unusual amount), the number of branches they have (a typical amount), the community they serve (their own local one), paints a picture of a very routine, very non-notable bank. A loose necktie (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a pretty good article to me. Solid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23mason (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)--23mason (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the references in the article and searching around online, I have not found evidence that Citizens First Bank has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as WP:NCORP requires. Out of the 25 sources provided, only three are independent, reliable, and significant. All three come from the same source, The Villages Daily Sun. The other sources I found online were only trivial mentions, mostly about stock prices. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I get the sense, Iamorangelightning, that you took advantage of Wikipedia's requirements that you have at least 10 edits and a 4-day edit history before deciding that your own draft article on this bank no longer had to wait around in the AfC queue and put it yourself in the mainspace. I am sure you did not do this because you have any conflict of interest in the article, are not an employee of the bank, and have no personal vested opinion in whether it is kept or deleted. And you are now up to 44 edits, with the edits to the non-bank articles all being perfunctory ones you did to fill time. Keep that train rollin'! But in other news: that the bank is notable "at least to the community it serves" doesn't really have any bearing: my cat is notable to the neighborhood in which he lives, but he sure ain't notable. And retirement communities are an unusual clientele for a bank? And that it is located in the fastest growing city in the US? None of that has any bearing on the BANK's notability. Should all those other community bank articles you mentioned be deleted? Maybe! Perhaps you should go check them out and nominate them for deletion if you think so. Be my guest! That, too, has no bearing here. A loose necktie (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that I understand your underlying hostility, or bizarre cat analogy, A loose necktie, but I appreciate your feedback. I think that at this point, notability has been easily proven, especially by the helpful and detailed post from Cunard. I would hope that all Wikipedians, however new they may be at this, would want to help build a robust encyclopedia of information, not just assassinate new articles indiscriminately if they don't fit their particular interest or fancy. Iamorangelightning (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the references have been updated since first brush. i think its ok. — DuncanStone23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep While I don't think that this organization is overly notable, the article is pretty well written and the references aren't nearly as bad as AntiCompositeNumber said in his source assessment. According to the article's edit history, the references and citations have been updated several times (13 of 34 are now from outside media coverage according to my count). Banana Guacamole (talk) — Banana Guacamole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment What is with the SPA account votes? – The Grid (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I'm not about to start an SPI myself, but I do think it is suspicious. I don't think I've seen anyone !vote "weak keep" as their first edit before. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there consequences for starting a sock puppet investigation for the person who starts it? That seems backwards, but I wanted to ask. A loose necktie (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thought came to Anita Hitz when she learned that Citizens First Bank recently passed a monumental milestone for a community bank — $1 billion in total deposits.
...
That focus on customer service explains a lot about this successful community bank, said Karen Dorway, president of Coral Gables-based BauerFinancial, the U.S. banking industry’s leading bank-ratings firm, “It’s absolutely the key; no question about it,” Dorway said. “It becomes more difficult as a bank becomes larger. But if the top management is committed to customer service, the chance of them being able to continue their success is extremely good.”
Citizens First ranks at such a level financially that BauerFinancial analysts awarded some of its highest marks to the community bank in their most recent analysis of the U.S. banking industry.
The financial ratings firm awarded the bank a four-star ranking, which classifies its financials as “excellent.”
“It’s profitable and nonperforming loans are well below the average for the state of Florida,” Dorway said recently.
In just less than two months, Citizens First Bank has achieved considerable success with its latest customer promotion.
...
Such use of creative customer services typically indicates a bank is interested in more than business-as-usual practices, said Robert J. Chassman, a Jacksonville-based banking industry analyst.
“It’s obvious they’re not happy standing still,” said Chassman, vice president of mergers and acquisitions at the investment banking firm of Allen C. Ewing & Co. “In order to stay a step ahead of the competition, they’re going to have to continue to roll out new products to differentiate themselves from other community banks.”
...
Quarterly bank deposits grew by nearly 17 percent to $779 million as of June 30, compared with the same time period a year ago, the bank reported in its latest filing with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
But it’s the makeup of those deposits that impresses Chassman. “What you want to look at is how they’re growing their deposits,” Chassman said. “Any bank is willing to grow deposits if they’re willing to up the interest rate. That’s typically on time deposits and certificates of deposits.
...
And the bank is posting ratios that many other community banks would envy, Chassman said. “Their year-to-date return on assets is 1.13 percent, which is an excellent number,” he said. In addition, the bank’s net interest margin also remains stable, Chassman said. The FDIC considers net interest margin as a key indicator of bank net cash flow and after-tax earnings.
...
Those numbers tell Chassman one thing: “It shows the bank is a conservative bank, and very well run,” he said.
Joseph Stewart Jr., chief executive of First Bank of the Villages, calls the bank's home base Disneyland for retirees.
...
Consider some of the attractions at Villages of Lake-Sumter: Bank assets soared 44 percent last year, all from internal growth, not acquisition. The community has never had a loan default. Never.
...
The nearly 6-year-old bank has more than $80 million in assets. And it earned $611,000 in 1996. That was up 125 percent from 1995.
The bank has competition, of course. But with two branches and plans for nine automated-teller machines, it's well-positioned in a growing, recession-proof community of retirees whose income comes from pension funds.
Even so, not all the bank's numbers are great. Its return on assets was only 0.91 last year, below the 1 percent industry benchmark. But that was way up from 0.58 percent the year before.
Likewise, return on equity was only 13.47 percent, on the low side, but more than double that in 1995.
One of the bank's problems is that its natural customer base - residents of the sprawling development - deposit a lot more money than they borrow. So the bank has to go further afield in lending than it does in raising deposits.
Here's another approach to growing a young community bank: First Florida Bank, based in Naples, already has a loan production office in the Orlando area and now plans to open a branch in Winter Park.
...
[Robert O.] Smedley launched First Florida in 1999. He said the loan production office here has about $20 million. The branch will permit the bank to gather deposits here and probably will make it easier to find good loans, too.
...
Growth at the bank has been fast. Citizens First opened in 1991. By the end of last year, it had assets of $246.6 million. The bank has three offices in The Villages, which has a population of nearly 30,000, and a fourth in Leesburg.
The word is that First Bank of the Villages is to open July 1, if federal bank regulators give the green light as appears likely.
...
OK, I know Joe Stewart is the chief executive officer of the new bank and chairman of the board of directors.
Schwartz is a member of the board and a stockholder. So is his son, Gary Morris, a principal executive overseer of OBG enterprises.
Schwartz is patriarch of Orange Hills Inc., owner of the Villages of Orange Blossom Gardens, which sold a piece of land in the LaGrande Plaza to the First Bank of the Villages stockholders.
Where do shareholders of First Bank of the Villages in Lady Lakes go when they want to borrow big bucks?
Huntington National Bank.
Trusts set up for three children of Gary Morse, one of First Bank's founders, plan on borrowing $2.7 million from Huntington to load up on more First Bank stock, First Bank President Joseph Stewart said in a letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Residents of The Villages who patronize the Citizens First Bank in their neighborhood will soon have a second full-service branch at which to do business.
...
The first Citizens First Bank in The Villages opened July 1, 1991.
Changes are ahead for Citizens First Bank in Leesburg, but Chief Executive Officer Steven Kurtz said the institution is in town to stay.
...
The company for several years has been contemplating moving from its handsome yellow building at the junction of U.S. 441 and U.S. Highway 27, where it not only housed the bank branch on the bottom floor but an operations center on the top floor – each level measuring in at 5,000 square feet.
...
Citizens First Bank was founded in 1991. It currently has $2 billion in total assets.
It’s a business philosophy that ranks The Villages’ bank among the top banks in its class in terms of deposit growth, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently reported on its Web site (fdic.gov).
Citizens First reported slightly more than $734 million in total deposits last year, the FDIC disclosed. It is among 176 banks, or 67 percent of all banks in the state, that reported total deposits of $100 million to $1 billion.
All of the banks in that class reported only an average 4.12 percent increase in deposits, while Citizens First more than doubled its annual deposits. The Villages’ bank experienced a 9.48 percent increase in deposits during the same reporting period.
Since its formation in 1991, the bank has adopted a customer-friendly operating strategy to win over the Villages population. It is a strategy that has served the bank well, market studies show.
The bank owned 25.4 percent of the entire Sumter County banking market as of the financial reporting period that ended June 30, 2005, according to the national research firm SNL Financial. It ranked second only to Wachovia Bank, a national bank.
The Villages Daily Sun quotes Karen Dorway, president of Coral Gables-based BauerFinancial, a U.S. banking industry bank-ratings firm, about why Citizens First Bank is a "successful community bank". Dorway said, "It's absolutely the key; no question about it. It becomes more difficult as a bank becomes larger. But if the top management is committed to customer service, the chance of them being able to continue their success is extremely good." Dorway further said, "Its profitable and nonperforming loans are well below the average for the state of Florida". BauerFinancial gave Citizens First Bank a four-star rating and rated its financials were "excellent".
The Villages Daily Sun quotes Robert J. Chassman, a Jacksonville-based banking industry analyst, at the investment banking firm of Allen C. Ewing & Co. Chassman said, "In order to stay a step ahead of the competition, they're going to have to continue to roll out new products to differentiate themselves from other community banks." Chassman further noted, "Their year-to-date return on assets is 1.13 percent, which is an excellent number." Chassman concluded about Citizen First Bank's numbers, "It shows the bank is a conservative bank, and very well run".
The Orlando Sentinel provides detailed analysis of the company, noting that, "The bank has competition, of course. But with two branches and plans for nine automated-teller machines, it's well-positioned in a growing, recession-proof community of retirees whose income comes from pension funds." The Orlando Sentinel also provides negative material about the bank noting that "not all the bank's numbers are great" because "Its return on assets was only 0.91 last year, below the 1 percent industry benchmark" and "return on equity was only 13.47 percent, on the low side". The reporter provides further analysis: "One of the bank's problems is that its natural customer base - residents of the sprawling development - deposit a lot more money than they borrow. So the bank has to go further afield in lending than it does in raising deposits."
The bank passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The sources I listed here provide detailed commentary, discussion, and analysis of Citizens First Bank. The bank passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The Orlando Sentinel is a regional newspaper.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be good to have some more opinions from established editors, as the SPA !votes are likely to be ignored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The sources just don’t give credence to notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm trying to see why Cunard provided an analysis that more or less summarizes the assessment that AntiCompositeNumber provided. There's enough material to pass notability even with the trivial mentions. Probably get a reference independent from the business for its employees, revenue, stats, etc and it would be sufficient. – The Grid (talk) 12:49, 31 May 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.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:RAWDATA. There's nothing notable about an individual weather radar installation. There's hundreds of these in the US alone, all pretty much like the next one. All of the references are WP:PRIMARY sources, routine coverage of everyday events, and/or WP:UGC. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to NEXRAD. There are 159 of this particular type and they are absolutely not notable on their own, no substantive sources about it. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment the Danish article da:Budtz Müller has a source that has not been included in the en version, that should be evaluated by a Danish speaker before any decision is made. Futhermore, there may be other Danish sources: "H.R. Hiort-Lorenzen og F.P.G. Salicath, Repertorium over Legater og milde Stiftelser i Danmark, med Færøerne, Island, Grønland og de Vestindiske Øer: Stiftede før Udgangen af Aaret 1894, København: G.E.C. Gad 1899, bind 5, s. 122." --Theredproject (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is obviously notable and I have added a couple of references.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable under WP:ANYBIO: subject was court photographer in two countries (Denmark and Sweden-Norway) and has an article in the Danish Biographical Dictionary.TSventon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons TSventon lays out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 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.
Was kept because of pornbio but the community has done away with that and this does not pass GNG or ENT. Of the 3 sources raised last time. The BBC is about something else and she is just quoted and the other two el pais and espresso are not about her either. SpartazHumbug! 12:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To answer the nominator per the GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". To recap, she has been covered by the BBC [27], El País[28][29], and Expresso[30]. Montenegro has also been discussed in scholarly work [31][32]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a broken link for me. The second is an interview of her and there not independant. It's all not about her but taking her opinion about the subject of the book. That's not GNG worthy. SpartazHumbug! 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "article" is one sentence with a smattering of un-notable awards. Trillfendi (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JFTR, NINFA Award is a "thing", or rather, a redirect. Admittedly "best supporting" categories don't sound notable, but that's a fate they share with tons of Webby, Teen Choice, and so on categories. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't count when PORNBIO was around its sure as damned doesn't count now. SpartazHumbug! 15:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly the oldest XXX award in Europe, and {{US-centric}} exist: If you intend to restrict XXX awards to AVN it won't work, enwiki is not uswiki. I can't guess if it's better or worse than XBIZ (US) or Venus (Germany), and I'm glad that PORNBIO is gone. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does it virtually meet basic? Lacks sources is the definition of non notable. SpartazHumbug! 15:53, 30 May 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 sole "delete" !vote is by the nom (and usually the nom already counts as a delete !vote). Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a living person does not meet notability criteria. Article describes an associate professor who was briefly in the news four years ago in relation to a secondary role in the Canadian Senate expenses scandal. Notability of his academic work does not appear to achieve criteria for academics. Notability tag has been in place for nearly two years with little improvement. Geoff NoNick (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has enough sufficient sources to qualify the WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm disappointed the nominator has chosen not to include in his summary Perrin's most notable aspects: author of Invisible Chains and many academic works. Canada's only person to be awarded a "TIP Hero" by the US department of State. Senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute for Public Policy, researcher at the University of Colombia, former adviser to the Canadian Office of the Prime Minister and "Special Adviser and Legal Counsel to the Prime Minister". The list goes on... --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like many academics, he has written a book on his area of study and received positive recognition within his academic field for his work. I refer you to WP:NPROF to explore why that is not in itself sufficient to establish notability. In particular, I note that the "TIP Hero" award he is described as having received is not itself deemed notable enough for an article, and doesn't even appear on the first page of results of a Google search for it. I would argue that there is probably a good notability case for his book; in any event, if his book is what is notable then his mention as the author of it in the book's article is sufficient. We don't need both an article for the book and an article for the individual, who is notable primarily for the book. Likewise, he was indeed a legal counsel to the Canadian Prime Minister for a year or so. This doesn't appear to in itself establish notability (I note that I cannot find any other articles for other individuals who held that position). As I mentioned in the submission, his notability in relation to that position was as the result of a time-limited news event, which is captured under WP:BIO1E. Geoff NoNick (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed our below, he easily meets to criteria of WP:AUTHOR --John B123 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's at all clear that he satisfies the very narrow criteria required for someone to be considered a notable author under WP:AUTHOR. He is not (1) regarded as an important figure or widely cited as an author; (2) known for having created a new concept or theory; (3) known for having created a "well known" work; or (4) the author of a "monumental" work and has not drawn "significant critical attention". WP:AUTHOR describes a way for a individual like John Kennedy Toole to be considered notable on the basis of a single published work; to put it mildly, Benjamin Perrin does not meet this high standard. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWKeep. his widely reviewed book, which provoked another author to write a notable book in response, clearly carries him past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My fuller response on the WP:AUTHOR case is above. Being "widely reviewed" in the current press is not one of the criteria. The author who was "provoked" to write a book in response is an excellent example of an actually notable author, and I think the side-by-side comparison with Benjamin Perrin is instructive. WP:SNOW does not apply: this is not a "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussion". We're taking a show of hands on a topic over which reasonably-minded people can disagree. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being an apparently accomplished individual with an interesting background, I don't feel he meets the criteria set out for an author under WP:AUTHOR or for an academic under WP:NPROF. It's worthwhile noting that this article was actually created during the news reporting surrounding the Canadian Senate expenses scandal, which further seems to suggest that WP:BIO1E applies. Geoff NoNick (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Headlines demonstrating sustained notability:
B.C. prof (Perrin) shines light on modern-day slavery, Winnipeg Free Press; 09 Oct 2010: A.1.
Mike Duffy trial: Who is Benjamin Perrin? CBC Television; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Aug 20, 2015)
Ontario's justice system improves, but has issues; There's more work to do, Benjamin Perrin and Richard Audas writeOttawa Citizen 05 Mar 2018: A.9.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those "headlines" are, respectively: a contemporaneous review of his single published book; a media piece related to the WP:BIO1E event for which he is publicly known; and an unsolicited op-ed that he submitted to a city newspaper, the link to which is here. The op-ed is the only item from within the past couple of years. I don't see that this establishes "sustained notability". Geoff NoNick (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that "The op-ed is the only item from within the past couple of years." is inaccurate, see: (Judges cannot be overly swayed by victim impact statements: legal experts, The Hamilton Spectator (Online), Hamilton: Torstar Syndication Services, a Division of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. Jan 30, 2019.: "Benjamin Perrin, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, said victim impact statements have been part of the Canadian justice system since the late 1980s, and were introduced out of concern that victims were being left out.In 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into effect. It established the right of those harmed by a crime to present their feelings, including photographs, and allows judges to consider the statements as part of sentencing decisions.Perrin said such a large number of statements as in the Broncos case is rare, but it speaks to the impact of the crime, which is relevant. "There's a lot of caution that needs to be taken by judges in considering the victim impact statements, but they do provide valuable evidence that can be a source for them to arrive at a fair and appropriate sentence," said Perrin, who was a legal adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper.") Plus this gNews search: [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a great deal more WP:SIGCOV of him over more than a decade, as editors above have pointed out. My point here is that if an individual has a widely reviewed and discussed book in 2010, and is involved in a notable legal case in 2015, that makes 2 EVENTS. You cannot argue for deletion using BIO1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting approach - I admit that I hadn't interpreted the publication of his book as a significant event in itself. On consideration, I'm not sure that I'm convinced it really applies: the book enjoyed as many reviews as are typical of a well-written book on a relevant topic, but it doesn't seem to have particularly made a splash in the media. To the extent that this was WP:SIGCOV, isn't that coverage sufficiently addressed by the Invisible Chains article, just as his secondary involvement in the Canadian Senate expenses scandal is addressed there? Perhaps a redirect to Invisible Chains would be appropriate, rather than deletion? Geoff NoNick (talk) 19:07, 30 May 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.
Keep. The young man is featured in Irish Times as seen in the citations. He's also on this and this. This takes care of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. More citations are needed anyway. Camron6598 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. When we remove the auto-bio/promo/NOTLINKEDIN stuff that the nominator noted as concerns (including the unsupported claims and unattributed POV about the subject being a "renowned author" or a "sales and marketing thought leader"), we are left with three potential notability guidelines under which the subject might be considered. The first is WP:NAUTHOR. And, respectfully, publishing two titles (both seemingly released only at least one of which released primarily as Amazon/ebooks) doesn't meet the threshold of a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". The second is WP:NCORP (and related guidelines applicable to businesses and business people). Here, WP:INHERITORG would seem to apply. In that, while the subject may have reached senior positions in several businesses, that doesn't confer notability by default. The third and final is WP:GNG. And, while the contributor above points to a single Irish Times piece (of which the subject is the primary topic), a single bio piece isn't enough to meet SIGCOV. The other links/etc offered fall well short (in that they are either not independent of the subject or the subject is not the primary topic. Or both.) That the subject would seem to be reasonably well known to people familiar with SPIN selling or other similar techniques notwithstanding, I'm not seeing enough to meet the criteria of the project.... Guliolopez (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guliolopez, Thanks for your vote and comments. I made further updates on the page after discoveries. His first book titled "Winning the Battle for Sales" was first published in hardcover by McGraw-Hill. Here are the supporting citations:
Comment/reply. Hello. A couple of quick comments. Firstly, why does your user signature link to the user page of a different user? That is highly unusual, and heightens the COI, PROMO, PAID and other related concerns raised by the nominator. And indeed by other editors on your (main?) user talk page. Secondly, while I may have been mistaken about the nature of the release of one of the two books, it doesn't materially address the concern. (That two books aren't a "significant or well-known [..] collective body of work"). Finally, the Chicago Tribune piece doesn't contribute to notability. The subject is not the primary topic of the piece, and is quoted (in relation to another topic) towards the end of the piece. My recommendation hasn't changed. Though, truthfully, my PAID/NOTHERE sensor has gone up two or three points on the dial. Guliolopez (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftiying. I don't understand your question. I'm lost here. Anyway. I've decided to draftify this and work more on it in the future to address the concerns raised and report later.Silika. O. Silika{talk} 18:19, 30 May 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. None of the "keep" !votes is very convincing. All academics publish and a smattering of citations is to be expected. No evidence is provided that this individual rises above the mean. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly promotional bio of non-notable "thought leader" -- I have yet to see a non-promotional biography using that description in the lede (I decided to check my impression on a sample of 10. I intend to rewrite 2 who are significantly notable , and list the other 8 at afd--or csd.) . No significant writings, barely notable company. References ae either promotional PR interviews or placements of a list. d DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the objective notability of the individual does not appear to warrant an article. Geoff NoNick (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the individual has worked with organizations to increase diversity and representation, run studies that are widely cited within the academic psychology space, and has both been in the public and private sector - her work and self has been included/featured in multiple mass media platforms. As a new(ish) editor, I may have contributed to the language issues in the article, and will strengthen sources + rewrite article sections for your review. Arewethereyetmom (talk) 7:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Under what name were you a "long-time user"? I ask because [34]. I do see that this is your first article creation [35]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing an article in an academic journals does not create notability unless there is evidence that the work had an impact on the field.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of achievement. Promotional blurb and commercial advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Article needs rewrite WP:BB, which I am working on now. Subject falls under WP:CREATIVE along with academic research. Founder of international media outlet, has been cited in multiple independent sources on said-work. Criteria as noted by above Wiki editor could then be applied to multiple biographies on WP about entrepreneurs & young founders, while this article’s original nomination for deletion focused on the promotional tone of content. In full disclosure, I contributed towards that tone, but have spent hours studying the above editors’ contributions, and am using their approach to remove any promo tone/lay out subject’s work & achievements in research, entrepreneurship & government work. (Accidentally copied a signature template not realizing I didn’t change it to my username, sorry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadAWomansBook (talk • contribs) — ReadAWomansBook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
Comment Sadly, I'm not finding much. The article itself references a History channel special, a piece in Bon Appetit, and something from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, but I wasn't able to find any of them; maybe someone else can? There's a bare mention in the Wall Street Journal here and a short mention in the Daily Meal here which was picked up by HuffPo here, but I don't know whether that's enough along with the local coverage to show notability outside the local area. They're sort of overshadowed by the major presence in the market, Graeter's, which is a shame. --valereee (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think valereee and I had the same idea at the same time! There were articles about chocolates published in states other than Ohio (including Florida, New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, etc) in 1985 and 1991, which both had several paragraphs about Aglamesis, including how long they had been making chocolates (which I've added to the article), their manufacturing process, their flavours, etc. They are also covered in a few books - Cincinnati Candy: A Sweet History, by Dann Woellert, Arcadia Publishing, 2017 (pp 142-146)[36]; 8 Wonders of Cincinnati, by Wendy Beckman (also Arcadia Publishing, 2017) - has one page [37]; The Insiders' Guide to Cincinnati, by Skip Tate and Felix Winternitz, Globe Pequot Press, 1998 (on 2 pages, hard to see how much there is) [38], and a later edition: Cincinnati - the Insiders' Guide by Felix Winternitz and Sacha DeVroomen Bellman, Globe Pequot Press, 2004 (on one page, can't see how much there is or isn't) [39]; I can see that the New York Times had something in 2014 ("Ever True to You, Local Parlor" [40]), but without subscribing I can't read it; and Mother Nature Network has 2 paras in "Where can you find the best ice cream in the U.S.?" [41]. I know that Arcadia Press publishes "neighborhood, local, and regional history", but presumably their books are sold, or available, outside the region too? The History Channel feature would also have been broadcast outside the area. So it seems to me that it does meet WP:ORGCRITE: there is definitely "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source" for WP:AUD, and there is definitely also significant coverage, in sources that are reliable, independent and secondary. Multiple significant sources would, I think, be met by the The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Arcadia books, and the History Channel feature. (There is also a centenary history, Aglamesis Brothers Confectionery: 1908-2008, which looks significant but is probably not independent - the publisher is named as Ket-Moy Printing). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, Ket-Moy appears to be a brand-promotion company. I've requested the other books from the library, as I'm not getting to some of the pages on google books. --valereee (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: my bad, when I searched for sources at Newspapers.com I filtered by Ohio results, which made it appear as if the only coverage was local coverage. Article is showing much more robust coverage now outside of the Cincinnati region. Thanks to RebeccaGreen and Valereee for helping improve this article! Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 27 May 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I approved this article at AFC, it said he played four games in the Eerste Divise, which passes WP:FPL. Nom then edited the article to say he hadn't played any and nominated it for deletion. I'd like to know which is accurate before I !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Smartyllama: That's why I specifically added a ref to his Dordrecht spell. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:51, 30 May 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.
Weak delete. The sources don't look impressive, but a German-speaker is probably more suited then me to comment here. Ping me if there are mores sources for discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:COIEDIT, editors are strongly discouraged from writing their own Wikipedia articles, and no conflict of interest was disclosed for this one. Taking it on its own merits, it reads like a resume but does not give evidence of notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Translators can be notable, but, the simple fact of having translated a number of graphic novels ≠ notability. To establish notability we need WP:SIGCOV in SECONDARY sources that say what a notable translator he is. All taht we seem tohave here is verification that he has translated stuff. If anyone finds SIGCOV of him as a translator (profiles, praise of his workby literary critics, or similar,) ping me to revisit. I am always willing to change an opinion when shown evidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article has enough info and some of the sources are also good enough to pass WP:GNGCamron6598 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention 2 or 3 such sources?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources are local (district/county-level) news. And while Die Welt is a major newspaper, he is only trivially mentioned on a web-only supplement, through a list of thirty freely downloadable games. The other sources are also primary sources and/or trivial mentions. So I don't see WP:GNG. Don Cuan (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my analysis, too. And my searches find nothing better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 31 May 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 27 May 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.
Delete We have no info for next season and until we get some, this is properly the best solution that we will have for now. HawkAussie (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, this article clearly indicates that there is insufficient information at this time for the article to exist. SSSB (talk) 22:10, 28 May 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.
There is no notability here except for her role in a possibly ntoable company (I removed some trivial material about her activities as a student, that merely made manifest the entirely promotional nature of this article. ( It's in the page history. ) I thought there might be enough left, but I was wrong. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability under GNG or any SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 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.
delete porn actress appeared in a handful of non-notable porn films (and as "Brunette Cowgirl" in the sole bluelinked film where she appeared,) won a few of the awards with which this industry self-promotes. Fails WP:ACTOR, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 27 May 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.
It's not a significant award for ENT and PORNBIO has been depreciated. SpartazHumbug! 15:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is not significant, but it has an enwiki page with wikilinks to 7 of 9 winners, 2018+2019 not yet covered. Is this "not significant" on your say so, or some consensus? If this award would be all you'd have a clear BLP1E. At the moment it could be also a clear {{Refimprove}}—only XBIZ+AVN are not good enough, IAFD is no RS—and a PROD if nobody fixes this within, say, a year. I'm not volunteering to fix it, I just stumbled over the name while looking for another AfD, and found the award page. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 30 May 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.
Fails GNG and ENT. Appearing in a documentary about line through the ages is insufficient on its own - even if it counts as a rs for here. A bio with no properly sourced biographical data is unsustainable SpartazHumbug! 06:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 29 May 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.
There is nothing to say except the awards and they are not significant enough. May have passed PORNBIO but fails GNG and ENT. SpartazHumbug! 05:56, 27 May 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 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.
Fails ENT and GNG - even the DOB is only sourced to IAFD. In other words our article is a table of award nominations. SpartazHumbug! 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is another bad-faith nominaton from an anti-porn editor (look at his contribution history from today alone). It would be different if someone else nominated this. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 15:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's only apparent bias is against poorly sourced porn. Articles like this one illustrate why WP:PORNBIO had to be dumped. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 100% PORNBIO with zero reliably sourced biographic content. Would not even have passed the most recent applications of WP:PORNBIO. Fails WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. An independent search for RS coverage yielded only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW Sadly the delete's are right. WP decided to depreciate Pornbio and so now the process of deleting porn actors is underway. Awards and GNG have not much to do with it. The systematic deletion of these articles is contrary to wp:preserve and wp:notpaper but nonetheless I concur that the new depreciated pornbio makes deletion a foregone conclusion. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete. It's a shame, because the article within itself is a well-written autobiography. The original editor referred to Aziz as "princess" in every subsequent mention of her, hinting at having a connection with the source. There is a clear bias in the article, even though the target is not too notable. Definitely reads as if it were written from an inner circle, at the minimum.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I removed most of the fluff, do you think the article is savable now?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject’s publicist will probably keep editing the page but I think they meet WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep being slavishly promotional isn't actually a reason to delete, so long as the individual nevertheless meets WP:GNG, which in this case I think they do. Also if an article needs rebuilding from scratch, that can and should be done without deleting it. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I looked through a couple dozen of the references and then did some external searches and I can't really match the references with the text or notability. For example, the reference for becoming the first Urdu-language novelist in Saudi Arabia points to an online Russian replica handbag store. One of the post-grad educational references merely points to an institute's home page (which doesn't appear to offer post-graduate studies). The reference to being an editor (which is not notable anyway) points to the BBC's country profile. Many of the claims with references to newspapers worked at simply point to the newspaper's home page, not all of which actually exist. The references related to books or films do not actually point to said books or films. I can't really figure out what the Global Sports Federation is either. I don't really see anything that points to clearcut notability and the page would need some really aggressive editing regardless as the article as written is not encyclopedic. I hope that those favouring keep will take a closer look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO suffering not only with Wikipedia:Citation overkill, but with unreliable sources. Take that last paragraph of eh 1st subhead, about her dowry. It is sourced to Marriage & Divorce: All you need to know about Muslim marriages nothing abut her at all, the other source for the dramatic dowry claims is [42] a blog post that no longer exists. Teh next paragraph had two links, both to pages that made no mention of her. Every paragraph I checked was like that. Links that led to articles that were not about this person at all. OK , I only checked 4 paragraphs. Nevertheles... this page is so overstuffed with links ot nowehere that it almost feels like a hoax. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 30 May 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.
References are composed of either;
1. Passing mentions of her in previous careers.
2. Being included in collections of "athletes of the week" for sports unrelated to her as a professional wrestler
3. Articles about her at non-notable indie promotion and her being one of the wrestlers at a recent tryout with WWE.
Maybe if she gets into WWE or one of the other larger promotions and starts getting some more notable coverage an article should be created but I think its a bit too soon for this one. Greyjoytalk 05:31, 27 May 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.
SPEEDY KEEP Bad faith nomination. Not much has changed since the previous attempt to kill this pageant, except that more sources have been added, as I predicted. This pageant has gotten legitimate news coverage in primarily Asian based major news outlets. Are the nominators that jingoistic? Today, I had no problem finding additional sources to add to the various articles under attack as multiple individual AfD's. You know a group effort like this should be unified WP:BUNDLE, these also have individual AfDs for each. You know you should do a WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD. You obviously did not as I will substantiate later. Both those steps were failed, so these should be Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone. My cynicism expects that won't even be considered. WP:GNG is clearly met here. 2018 coverage: USA, CanadaIndia, more India (there's lots more), Brazil, Bangla Desh, Philippines, and more Philippines (and a lot more). Philippines did a lot of coverage of the 2017 event, won by Miss Philippines. They also gave a lot of coverage to the 2018 event, held in 2019, not won by a domestic entrant. Do I have to lead you malicious people on a basic Google search, again? Yes, I take these attacks seriously and use harsh language. Legitimate attempts to find sources were not made. Sources get removed. These are deliberate to achieve the goal of eliminating content; to get brownie points for that effort. All of the Miss Multinational articles should be a KEEP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Trackinfo: Your edit putting four IC on a sentence about the winner's height wasn't too good. It was what I often call around here- Bullshit with a reference - since three of the four IC didn't corroborate the sentence namely the bit about the winner's height and hence I removed them. Make sure in the future that the reference actually says what it is there to corroborate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Multinational - one event is not notable on its own, only as part of the pageant series - unnecessary content fork from the main article - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - While it is possible to find some articles on this pageant they seem to be predominantly bloggings or press release stuff. There isn't any significant or sustained writing about the pageant itself. What appears to be a trade tracking site Missology doesn't consider it to be a significant pageant and they seem to keep a close eye on this niche industry. The site of the company that owns the pageant has default templates for some of its pages (About us) and stock photos in multiple places. While it may become a significant pageant some day, I don't see the coverage that would support that today, which is curious since promotion seems to be a key element of the industry. Pageants such as Miss Earth seem to have connections with significant organisations and have their contestants out promoting themselves, the org and its cause. I don't see anything similar here. I think all of this is reflected in the current state of the page as there isn't really anything to write about yet. My recommendation here applies to each of the related pages. ogenstein (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside - Made an error signing the above comment. ogenstein (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to note that the pageant web site hasn't even been updated to show the new winner, when the second contest was apparently held in January. The home page is still showing the initial contest's winner and a 'countdown' to the January event. Why would WP take them more seriously than they take themselves. As an added bonus, the 'coverage' on the PhilStar site gets the pageant year wrong and isn't about this pageant at all — they were covering a Miss World event and chatting with the Multinational winner who happened to be there. You can see that in the videos on the page. ogenstein (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
SPEEDY KEEP Bad faith nomination. Not much has changed since the previous attempt to kill this pageant, except that more sources have been added, as I predicted. This pageant has gotten legitimate news coverage in primarily Asian based major news outlets. Are the nominators that jingoistic? Today, I had no problem finding additional sources to add to the various articles under attack as multiple individual AfD's. You know a group effort like this should be unified WP:BUNDLE, these also have individual AfDs for each. You know you should do a WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD. You obviously did not as I will substantiate later. Both those steps were failed, so these should be Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone. My cynicism expects that won't even be considered. WP:GNG is clearly met here. 2018 coverage: USA, CanadaIndia, more India (there's lots more), Brazil, Bangla Desh, Philippines, and more Philippines (and a lot more). Philippines did a lot of coverage of the 2017 event, won by Miss Philippines. They also gave a lot of coverage to the 2018 event, held in 2019, not won by a domestic entrant. Do I have to lead you malicious people on a basic Google search, again? Yes, I take these attacks seriously and use harsh language. Legitimate attempts to find sources were not made. Sources get removed. These are deliberate to achieve the goal of eliminating content; to get brownie points for that effort. All of the Miss Multinational articles should be a KEEP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Multinational - one event is not notable on its own, only as part of the pageant series - unnecessary content fork from the main article - Epinoia (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - While it is possible to find some articles on this pageant they seem to be predominantly bloggings or press release stuff. There isn't any significant or sustained writing about the pageant itself. What appears to be a trade tracking site Missology doesn't consider it to be a significant pageant and they seem to keep a close eye on this niche industry. The site of the company that owns the pageant has default templates for some of its pages (About us) and stock photos in multiple places. While it may become a significant pageant some day, I don't see the coverage that would support that today, which is curious since promotion seems to be a key element of the industry. Pageants such as Miss Earth seem to have connections with significant organisations and have their contestants out promoting themselves, the org and its cause. I don't see anything similar here. I think all of this is reflected in the current state of the page as there isn't really anything to write about yet. My recommendation here applies to each of the listed pages. ogenstein (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just wanted to note that the pageant web site hasn't even been updated to show the new winner, when the second contest was apparently held in January. The home page is still showing the initial contest's winner and a 'countdown' to the January event. Why would WP take them more seriously than they take themselves. As an added bonus, the 'coverage' on the PhilStar site gets the pageant year wrong and isn't about this pageant at all — they were covering a Miss World event and chatting with the Multinational winner who happened to be there. You can see that in the videos on the page. ogenstein (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This newly established pageant is not notable and the info in the article is a duplication of another article called, Glamanand Supermodel India. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP Bad faith nomination. Not much has changed since the previous attempt to kill this pageant, except that more sources have been added, as I predicted. This pageant has gotten legitimate news coverage in primarily Asian based major news outlets. Are the nominators that jingoistic? Today, I had no problem finding additional sources to add to the various articles under attack as multiple individual AfD's. You know a group effort like this should be unified WP:BUNDLE, these also have individual AfDs for each. You know you should do a WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD. You obviously did not as I will substantiate later. Both those steps were failed, so these should be Speedy Keep on procedural grounds alone. My cynicism expects that won't even be considered. WP:GNG is clearly met here. 2018 coverage: USA, CanadaIndia, more India (there's lots more), Brazil, Bangla Desh, Philippines, and more Philippines (and a lot more). Philippines did a lot of coverage of the 2017 event, won by Miss Philippines. They also gave a lot of coverage to the 2018 event, held in 2019, not won by a domestic entrant. Do I have to lead you malicious people on a basic Google search, again? Yes, I take these attacks seriously and use harsh language. Legitimate attempts to find sources were not made. Sources get removed. These are deliberate to achieve the goal of eliminating content; to get brownie points for that effort. All of the Miss Multinational articles should be a KEEP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - While it is possible to find some articles on this pageant they seem to be predominantly bloggings or press release stuff. There isn't any significant or sustained writing about the pageant itself. What appears to be a trade tracking site Missology doesn't consider it to be a significant pageant and they seem to keep a close eye on this niche industry. The site of the company that owns the pageant has default templates for some of its pages (About us) and stock photos in multiple places. While it may become a significant pageant some day, I don't see the coverage that would support that today, which is curious since promotion seems to be a key element of the industry. Pageants such as Miss Earth seem to have connections with significant organisations and have their contestants out promoting themselves, the org and its cause. I don't see anything similar here. I think all of this is reflected in the current state of the page as there isn't really anything to write about yet. My recommendation here applies to each of the listed pages. ogenstein (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reliable sources for this just aren't here, and there's not nearly enough out there to establish notability at this point. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 27 May 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.
Absolutely no indication of notability. Article is and has been unsourced since the beginning. It's simply an artifact of a bygone era on Wikipedia. Unless there is something in its history that brings it to WP:GNG, it's a city park. There are similar parks everywhere. There's a small bit on environmental issues, but even that is not particularly distinguishing in the rust belt. If there's an article on ground contamination in metro Detroit that this could be redirected to, by all means let's do that. I'm not seeing one. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. John from Idegon (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not notable itself. The article is about a park, without any significant history or story.Forest90 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small park in a small city, with a small chance of being notable. Doesn't register many hits in Detroit newspapers that are beyond routine mentions or event listings. SounderBruce 05:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. (Also, immaterial here, but it was created by an WP:SPA in a promotional tone.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 May 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.
Declined PROD. Article is one sentence, does not indicate notability substantial enough for Wikipedia (having "notably" in the article doesn't count if it doesn't have reliable sources). Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: While I still do not believe that one crash makes one notable, as almost every amateur driver would be considered notable, work done on the page has now resulted in a sufficient proving of WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revamp entirely. Per Racing-Reference, Krebs is a 15-year NASCAR Cup Series veteran. That alone is enough to establish notability. That being said, the article obviously needs more substance. I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do to bulk it up. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Article about NASCAR. I find that the person (John Krebs) is notable person but we can't find enough reliable sources to cover his article. I think merging the article with a biggest article is the best option. Forest90 (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's a bit premature to say "We can't find enough reliable sources to cover his article." Like I said, I'll see what I can find tomorrow. If we do choose to merge and redirect, however, I'd say List of NASCAR drivers would be more appropriate. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Oppose redirect/merge to NASCAR since there's no content in the article worth keeping. There's is nothing to merge, and the NASCAR article shouldn't have content about individual drivers anyhow (except possibly a little on the sanctioning body's all time greats). One sentence does not make an article. The top 3 NASCAR series are considered professional drivers per WP:NMOTORSPORT so he's easily notable enough to pass the general motorsports notability standards. No prejudice against creating an article article. It's easy to find content about him since he has 19 starts in 15 seasons in NASCAR's top series. Royalbroil 19:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just gone in and beefed it up a little bit (it's still a stub, but well-referenced stubs are better than nothing imho). I will try to add a results table tomorrow, but since it appears notability is not this issue, I hope this will be enough to warrant a keep. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the article became referenced. He easily passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. Thank you for work on the article, Bcschneider53! Royalbroil 01:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If flipping at Sonoma Raceway in 1994 is the main reason offered to keep this article, I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep an article. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JimKaatFan: It's not. He passes WP:NMOTORSPORT easily as a 15-year veteran of the highest level of professional stock car racing in America. The crash was simply the highlight (lowlight?) of his career and what he's most remembered for as a driver, but his notability is established on his Cup career as a whole. Max is right in saying he is notable but wrong for giving the flip as the main reason. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 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.
Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Of the leagues listed in criteria #2, he only has 29 games in the Slovak Extraliga and 10 games in the HockeyAllsvenskan, a total of 39 games which is well short of the 200 minimum requirement. No preeminent honours to show for to pass #3 as well. Tay87 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 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.
Doesn't quite meet WP:GNG, there's a fair amount of mere-mentions and gossip-blog type coverage, but nothing useful for writing an article. 2 not-terribly-successful recent films isn't enough to meet WP:NACTORsigned, Rosguilltalk 00:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, my search engine show many website which pay to article subject, but the person really considered as WP:NACTOR.Forest90 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was really unsure to put this or not. This seems like a promotion page though and I'm not sure about the notability. From what it seems, Nikko Sunset is salted, so this might need to be also. (I think there was a AFD with this article name before-but I can't find one) Wgolf (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. I don't know why this article nominated for deletion? It's notable and enough sources you can find about the subject. The actor is really notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) I think Merge the article be the best option. The artist work and history could insert inside another article about Greek Artist.Forest90 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has been previously deleted a bunch of times and salted before, I was REALLY unsure to do this or not, but given the history of the page I felt like putting it up as a AFD then. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I might just withdraw this if need be, but as I said there does seem to be history going against this given how it has been salted in the past, so I wanted to see what others think as well. (I was going to move it to be not in all uppercase, but since I couldn't...) I don't normally afd articles with this much info anyway (usually short ones to be honest) Wgolf (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forest90, could you show us any of these sources that demonstrate notability? The only reliable source in the article at present appears to be the one from Patris News and that's a primary source interview. Almost everything else is unreliable music blogs and/or passing mentions advertising a new song. I'm struggling to find anything usable at the moment. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120, I change my comment, at the first time that I searched about the subject it was looked like it's a famouse artist, but now, I change my comment.Forest90 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This DJ is not notable even in all caps. That article (if you could even call it that) is an abomination. Trillfendi (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. It's notable article and enough sources you can find about the subject. My opinion is to Keep! manolishusemusic (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Nikosathens31. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For sure you must keep this article. It is clear with Sources and Photos petros (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC) 154.57.7.131 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Nikosathens31. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both the above "keep" comments are the only Wikipedia edits by these editors... there may be some socking or meatpuppetry at play here. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "keep" votes above are probably the result of canvassing, and are definitely guilty of the "just notable" fallacy. Note the name of the person who created this version of the article, and the fact that the title is in all caps indicates an attempt to get around previous deletions. Now for the policy argument: the article seems to be using his "Region Media Award" as the claim for notability but that awards ceremony is apparently not of interest to the mainstream media in that country, so I would argue that it's not a notable award. Otherwise,the DJ has a lot of works but media discussion about them can only be found in introductory form at unreliable blogs, and everything else is routine industry notices and self-produced social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I think some sock puppetry is going on here. Wgolf (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC) @Doomsdayer520: and @Richard3120:, I put up a report for a possible SPI, put more if you find any. Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment-I think you must change the Name NIKKO SUNSET to Nikko Sunset and keep the article. nikosathens31 (Nikosathens31) Blocked for suspected sockpuppetry. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nikosathens31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete - Fails to get close to WP:GNG. When editors above say "....It's notable and enough sources you can find about the subject. The actor is really notable itself." what exactly does that mean? "Notable enough....." has no meaning. Looks like somebody got his friends round to try and make the case. VelellaVelella Talk 15:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - No notability. The page's purpose seems to be exclusively promotional in nature (or perhaps nostalgiac). Some of the text seems borrowed from the Discogs page. As an aside, it does that poorly as for example, the top two external links are for the same 'official' page, which hasn't been updated in a year. Quick searches with google or news come up with little or nothing. ogenstein (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I don't weigh in on subjects where sources may be in non-English, but re-creating a page for a subject previously deleted and SALTED is a blatant attempt to do an end-run around Wikipedia policy, and the canvasing/sockpuppetery noted above is also fairly obvious. THere's also a bit of sleigh-of-hand puffery evident in claiming to be with a major label by name checking Universal. It's another case (showing up all too frequently on musician's vanity pages) of their small, independent label using the distribution services of the Universal Music Group--services available to any label/musician--as a way to claim of being part of the Universal family of labels. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-looks like I was right in putting this up. When someone said he might be notable I was thinking "well is he?" and was wondering what others thought (the one keep that is probably not a SPI). Anyway, this should be salted. Wgolf (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill DJ. There is not in-depth coverage for him, or his artistic achievements (if any). A purely promotional piece for a no notable DJ. For those who understand Greek, see the deletion discusssion of the Greek-language WP article on him. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The Greek article has been also created by user Nikosathens31, obviously Nikko Sunset in person. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This document lists him as an Associate Professor Emeritus with a Ph.D. from Princeton University. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither credential is sufficient to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. A great many people have Ph.D.s from Princeton, and being a professor emeritus often merely means officially retired but sticking around the department. bd2412T 01:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 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.
.jpg)
Comment: The ISBN led me to Amazon. There are some "editorial reviews" by what could be RS, it's not the same idea as "customer reviews". OTOH the publisher reported by Amazon is "BookBaby", and on CD Baby I found a hint that BookBaby is a "part of the newly-formed DIY Media Group". On dewiki a book on demand would be handled as speedy, here you have a chance to check how bad it is: Six references, ignoring the bad HuffPost + bad BuzzFeed. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
