Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Lee Wilson[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable puff piece/vanity spam. I don't see any reviews of his works and no coverage of him. Praxidicae (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete real issues with PROMO as indicated by the NOM. Fails NAUTHOR and GNG, so no indication of notability either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the link to the writer (the link was broken, I don't know why: [1] I added it again and now it works.

And I have the links to his books and screenplays, give it some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs) 05:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for an activist, searched gNews [2] and proqest newspapers and came up absolutely empty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a PDF file in form of screen-shots from the newspaper about the author's getting the Shider award. How can I add it to the references? RossK 19:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep (Article author)

Important Update regarding Corey Lee Wilson:

I was able to locate and add two important links:

1) His membership in the National Writers Union (the first link come back as broken, but if you click: [3] then "Find a writer" and put the name of the author "Corey Wilson", it will show these results: Wilson, Corey Corona CA Labor / Workers Issues, Politics and Government Academic Writing and Editing, Features Writing, Magazine Writing, Newspaper Writing, Public Speaking, Script Writing

2) A PDF file to the Laurel magazine of Phi Kappa Tau about Shider Award in 1985:[4]

I hope these two links will help to reconsider the deletion and prove more notability. For at least you can leave a Notice for more citations at this time. RossK 19:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

Comment. Removed the SAPIENT Being part and civil activity so it won't look like a PROMO (this is the last thing we need here).

I will upload more links later tonight to solidify the article with more sources of informationRossK 21:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

Comment. Added one more link to the Laurel Magazine of 1997 as a proof that the author indeed received the Shideler AwardRossK 18:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

Ross kramerov I think you need a crash course in reliable sources and notability because this article is pretty much the exact opposite of this. A non-notable award is meaningless. Google drive is not a source. IMDB is not a source. The rest are not valid sources to establish any form of notability. Please also condense your comments and format them properly as it makes this AFD impossible to follow. Further trying to pass off the Shideler award as if it was for his writing is deceiving. It's not.Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I never indicated that the Shideler Award was for his writing achievements but it is a part of Corey Biography. Instead, I put his list of publications. Question: Can the link to the Writer's Union count as a reliable one? If you put in search the author's name on the website, it appears there. I understand about IMDb and Google Drive - I just couldn't find anything else. Ross kramerov (talk)19:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any evidence of WP:BIO being met. As an aside, in doing some research on the subject I came across the fratire article, which looked to have been hijacked by an IP to focus on Wilson and his publishing company. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fishy. WP:BEFORE fails to find any other sources. Current refs fail WP:GNG and WP:RS, very minor/SPS, there's even a Google Drive link there. All books published by "Fratire Publishing" (consider the usage of S.A.P.I.E.N.T on the publisher about page and subject homepage - what are the odds? WP:DUCK it's WP:SPS, so clear fail at WP:NAUTHOR), one in the 1980s and then several in 2018? Awards? Very minor too. Article created by WP:SPS. The sources are so poor this could be a hoax, but probably it's just the run-of-the-mill vanity/promo hackjob. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queerbaiting[edit]

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

I see some changes have been made to it since I posted on its talk page. But it still seems like a niche term that only a small group of activists use and isn't notable. The mere existence of the article is also POV, because it was created by said activists to spread influence for the word they created. It also had Unreliable Sources and Third Party issues, as most of the sources were said activists' own blogs and essays.

I believe the only way to make it a neutral article (and provide any noteworthiness) is to re-frame it as a discussion of the activists' opinions on the subject. Alas, the article is still using "Wikipedia's voice" to speak of this niche term as if it were a fact.
Amaroq64 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG; it's a mainstream, globally-recognized term - there are more sources here: Business Insider, Teen Vogue, BBC News, The Independent, and New Zealand Herald. Orville1974 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator confuses their disapproval of the concept with non-notability. That queerbaiting is something which reliable sources describe in depth is amply demonstrated by the article's references. That's what's needed for an article. Sandstein 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced and describes a relevant topic. If anything, a skeptic's perspective could be added through additional neutral point of view edits and sourcing. Ericwg (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear fail of WP:BEFORE. Britishfinance (talk) 09:26, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Boothroyd[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. This one pains me a little bit as the Elite Ice Hockey League is my home league, but the fact is the EIHL only qualifies for notability if preeminent honours are achieved (#3) and the subject does not have any in that league. He is a former All-Star First Team member and Player of the Year at the second-tier EPIHL but that league does not qualify for notability, per past nominated and PROD deletions of First All-Star players Arnoldas Bosas and Jason Silverthorn. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. He did played over 200 games, but the club he was is not stated in WP:NHOCKEY. INeedSupport ^:3 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not neet notability Alex-h (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Freiman[edit]

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

I can find references to Freiman's articles online but very little about him. I do not think there is enough coverage to make him notable. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No published obits found, only a death notice. a few articles in a gNews search here: [5]. Noting at all in Proquest newspapers. A few citations of his articles in a gBooks search: [6] No indication of notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editors of fan sites are almost always not notable, despite the fact I knew one who would have created a Wikipedia article on herself if such did not explicitly go against Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Christensen[edit]

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

Only one source is out there which is WWD's Model Call (I'm not the biggest fan of those things as they don't contribute to notability, sometimes they give they give useful tidbits of information in the lede but the questions are never that hard-hitting). Other than that there's not really a career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. WWD interview was closest; other mentions were literally mentions. ogenstein (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am also not finding any sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. – Levivich 05:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No adequate sources found. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cov Campus[edit]

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

Have searched for sources, I have found no reliable coverage. I believe that it is not notable and WP:TOOSOON. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I was originally was voting for draftify, but then I see that there's no secondary sources that explains the campus at all, which is not good for WP:GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 22:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough substance to the article. If it can be fleshed out both in terms of content and sources, then can stay. For now, no. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:33, 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. ST47 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gunster (law firm)[edit]

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

Blatant piece of advertising "Florida's preeminent commercial law practice" with no refs. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TNT - this was a better article before the spammer hit it (@The Vintage Feminist:). However even then there weren't enough references to establish notability (simple name-drop "references" for the most part) and it had been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user - there are no signifiant edits by editors who are not the creator (blocked sock) or the account that turned it into an advertisement. There might be notability here, but that ain't it Chief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not a Wikipedia article, it's a blatant blurb.TH1980 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the promotional tone was made under a possible COI user GWPB. In addition, the user deleted a lot of references and added information that were unreferenced. I have reverted it to the last clean version. INeedSupport ^:3 21:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just fixed the citation (which removed any promotional material in the process). It may be outdated, but the article meets WP:GNG as it has significant coverage. A book that talks about it is far away from the location of the law firm, which is good for GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ notable, major, large law firm. Here's a search in the NYTimes [7], Florida papers naturally have more. Firm's notable partners include U.S. Senator George LeMieux. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor, at the very least I think this needs to run another week to give editors a chance to look a little harder for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved by INeedSupport. The firm seems to be reasonably well reported. As a former Florida lawyer, I recognized the name right away (which can't be said of most law firms in the state). bd2412 T 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY In addition to edits by INeedSupport, I quickly sourced a skeleton, but solid, history of the firm's serial mergers and growth. there's more than enought to KEEP. Article is longer PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the recent !votes that came in today, there's no discernible consensus and more discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the relisting. Living in the UK the concept of a notable law firm is something of a novelty to me, I don't know of any here and no idea of why I would/should. That said, the legal careers advice book the firm is listed in seems to be a case of "research x number of firms and print the research in a directory":

Dalton, Brian (2007). "Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A.". Vault Guide to the Top Southeastern Law Firms (2007 Edition). United States of America: Vault Inc. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-58131-414-4.

Delete press release, and minimal notability =a good cause for deletion. The infobox woulddo for the company's web page or advertisement--a list of the practice areas, which just happen to include every signifcant one except non-white-collar-criminal. Key people, lists all the board of directors.--and a number of the attorneys are listed by name in the first paragraph. Having a senator among its attorneys doesnt make the firm notable, much less having a former judge. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing added to page with WP:SIGCOV tracing the history of firms growth to dominant regional status. Notability of American law firms operating on this scale is demonstrated not only by the available sourcing, but by the number of pages that link to this page. It needs improvement, most of our pages do. but it meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that has ever been an informal criterion. If it were , one could justify articles on people with very little intrinsic importance and no reliable sources. Something being mentioned in WP does not make it suitable for an article, because article content is not subject to any notability requirement. The place for such relationships to be included is Wikidata, which should have an entry for every law firm mentioned in WP.

E.M.Gregory, a question: I made some comments about the nature of the contents here do you regard the listings of fields of practice and of multiple non-notable attorneys as appropriate? If you do not, wouldn't it have been a stronger article if you had removed it, so my claim of deletion for promotionalism would not apply? (If you do think it appropriate, we're going to need a RfC on this, becauseI have been routinely removing such content from all organization articles) DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Done. Honestly, I hadn't even noticed the info in the Info Box. My thought on notability is that the major regional and national law firms are an extremely significant part of the power structure of American society, and, therefore, we ought to provide at least basic information about them. The Florida press spilled a lot of ink over the activities of partner George LeMieux, I did not attempt to untangle it, but the interplay of power, money and politics in re: this firm is there for anyone with the time and access to a good news archive and LexisNexis to read it and add to the page, or in need of a dissertation topic in Political Science. Oh, and, no, links are not a criterion. For me, however, they are an indicator that a subject at AfD merits a close look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious advertising. Not surprisingly, this articletisement was written by a member of a large sock ring. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But was cleaned up, expanded and sourced during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the current version still fails WP:NCORP. If WP:BOGOF is how you want to invest your effort, who am I to say no? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete generosity and kindness are my great failing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TripBuddy[edit]

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

Non-notable startup; does not appear to pass WP:NORG. After I and another editor removed strictly promotional material, the article consists of an uncited history. The limited press coverage tends to be from tech blogs, or noting minor awards, and doesn't establish notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON as it lacks notability from multiple reliable independent secondary sources covering it in significant detail per WP:NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be a clear WP:NCORP failure, as the topic has not accrued the necessary amount of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. As others have noted, WP:TOOSOON may apply as the company is a startup.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP is lacking on this. Camron6598 (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Just about send to Afd, when I noticed it already here. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislavs Dobreņkijs[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Never played in a top-level league, never earned any preeminent honours and never played for Latvia in a senior World Championship, only in junior level which does not pass #6. Tay87 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing in youth leagues or on youth national teams does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. I saw nothing to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persikad Depok[edit]

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

Has not played for the national cup and third division in Indonesia is an amateur league, history could be redirected to Bogor F.C., but even that is a redirect. However, the content is entirely unsourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 2008–09 Copa Indonesia is correct, the club reached the second round of the Piala Indonesia, which is the national cup; also 2005 Copa Indonesia Final mentions that they were knocked out in the first round by Persija Jakarta. Peter James (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's assume it is. I'd be happy to withdraw on that bases, provided that some coverage could be found that would remove the article from perma-stub status. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple check of the Indonesian page, which has eight references, most of which appear to pass WP:GNG, would have eliminated the need to take this to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a simple check of that page and found nothing that supported notability for this team. Feel free to show me what I missed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - [8] is significant coverage of the club's sale. [9] talks about their second-place finish in the first division in 2007. Those are only the first two I checked. Clear WP:SIGCOV, it's just in Indonesian. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sale? Surely that belongs to the buying club's article. My nomination is withdrawn and another association football perma-stub will live on because the FOOTY project don't give a toss about the project, only about their teams. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The club played in the second division for years, and almost if not all second division Indonesian teams are notable enough for articles. There's nothing wrong with notable articles that can't be developed past stubs, but this one could be. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in national cup and there seems to be enough coverage out there. Giant Snowman 08:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InnovateMR[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Passing mentions and routine business announcements only. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the kind of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary reliable sources that NCORP requires. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article setting out a market research firm's wares. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 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. Tone 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey's World[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - per sources mentioned in the last nomination. Even the ones currently in the article, the The Arizona Republic and Wired (magazine) should be considered WP:RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, the Wired piece is an interview, not suitable for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Wired article is essential for notability to show wide coverage, but reading the article it's clear it's just an interview following a press release. Ericwg (talk) 02:37, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasti.cc[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 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. ST47 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bus[edit]

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

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Only trivial mentions in reliable sources found through google and news searches. ogenstein (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources cited in the article itself satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Additional links [10][11][12][13][14][15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those are trivial references (putting aside the Gawker blogpost which isn't remotely RS and merely describes the premise of a particular video). None of the cited works cover the company with any depth (actually they don't cover it at all). Two of them are quoting the exact same text (including the subject in a list of like porn providers) which simply describes a generically misogynistic porn plot (although plot might be an inexact term). The other references do the same but without any quoting. They're essentially being used as an example of what the author wishes to expound upon and I wouldn't consider them all RS either. ogenstein (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have extremely different ideas of what should be considered depth to satisfy the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The Miami New Times article [16] discusses an example of a scene production for the site, describes the general theme of the site comparing it to past themes in pornography, and discusses its founder and history. The local news site [17][18] discusses the same scene production in terms of its novelty and legality. Bangbus is a pioneer in Internet porn, and the website and its underlying theme is referred to again and again in those academic criticisms. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local news coverage of a strange but true story does not signify 'notable'. Think of the context of those stories you link to. It is of local interest so the local press works on a story. Where is the national attention? If this were the 'southfloridapedia', then this might be notable. Secondly, even this coverage is of an event. WP:NRV rejects 'short-term interest'. Miami New Times is a blog and is not an RS.

You should also remember the first three-quarters of the WP:GNG guideline you quote: 'Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail…. [It is] more than a trivial mention…'.

Digby's book is 240 pages. The subject earns a trivial mention. But let's look at this against that WP:GNG guideline. The book is about sexuality and romance in a militaristic society [main topic]. The chapter (5) that mentions 'bangbus' is about masculinity and fantasy in society [subtopic] and as part of that subject, discusses pornography [sub-subtopic] and in the course of doing so, mentions 'bangbus' [trivial]. If you cited this work for any of the three levels of topics, I could support it. Not here though.

Re: Kimmel article… How does, "On sites such as slutbus, bangbus and bangboat…" constitute significant coverage? They're serving as a 'type'. Does saying that the site has trailers serve as in-depth discussion? If just visiting the site would provide more information then it's not significant.

I must also point out that numerous other people/orgs are mentioned in the article, e.g. playboy, girls gone wild, maxim, pamela anderson, larry flynt, etc…. Nobody would use this article as evidence that any of those entities were notable. These mentions are trivial. 'Bangbus' isn't any sort of a topic in any of the pieces, they're not even a footnote. See the Flynt or Mitchell brothers articles for examples of notable members of the pornographic business.

Please also see WP:WEBCRIT which gives examples of actual notable web sites (see [4]). WP:NWEB requires 'verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.' All we have here is a token description of the content. WP:FAILN requires sources that 'provide in-depth information about the web content.' and suggests as an alternative to having its own page, perhaps merging it into something like 'list of internet phenomena' or delete. WP:WHYN requires significant coverage so as to write an encyclopedic article, not merely a few sentences. ogenstein (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree. The geographic circulation of a source does not determine its notability. The notability requirements simply requires that the significant coverage come from reliable sources. WP:NWEB is not a limitation on the WP:GNG. There is enough content in the coverage to support paragraphs about its history, its theme, and criticism against the theme that it pioneered. Additional coverage about its history. [19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's free to disagree. First, AVN is not RS. Second, it's not that NWEB is a limitation, it's that this subject does not meet GNG and NWEB provides an alternative recognition of notability (and umm… you raised it so I tried to address it).

Third, circulation is a factor in significance — if a newspaper falls in the forest…. WP:GEOSCOPE Every town has news. The national news cannot give space to every scrap of news from every town in the country. So national news is generally something significant to a broad range of people. If something rises up to the national level, then it will typically get coverage and become more notable. There are too many towns and cities in the world for us to know let alone care about everything that happens in each of them. Finally, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize what's written elsewhere, not copy it wholesale. With the sources that are legitimate, it will be more likely that every single word will be required but still only result in a stub of an article. I don't think the site warrants mention in the article on pornography (and it isn't mentioned). If you find more sources I'll look at them but I feel stronger about my opinion now than when I began digging into this. ogenstein (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE only applies to the scope of events; not the scope of the sources. A limited geographical area may have a limited number of reliable sources, but that is not the same thing as arguing the scope of the sources limits the notability of the subject.[20][21][22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd characterize it that way; I think it addresses both. I've highlighted a couple of portions. Note that it suggests that even national coverage isn't a guarantee of notability.

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.

I read through the first two of the links you provided (I'll get to the other later) and I feel that they actually add to my arguments. I didn't even bring up that the Local10 reports are primary sources… Not only are they not analysing a story, or even just reporting on a story, they're actually making the news here. Not saying they shouldn't have done so, only that it factors into claims of notability — really, they're just talking about something novel and inexplicable that happened one day. Nobody else cared even that much. And just to elaborate, I doubt that anyone a decade or a century from now would care about this (or beyond yourself, even right now :). As more than ten years have passed, we know that with certainty. I don't think that the subject has changed anything meaningfully even within their niche of a niche. Earlier I pointed out two pages which demonstrate a significance to that industry which dwarfs the subject's. If you look at the SF Examiner article cited on the Mitchell brothers page in note [7] you'll see what I mean. The dearth of material on this subject in comparison shows that clearly. ogenstein (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are trying to apply a limitation on the notability of events to evaluate the significance of the sources and your argument also goes against WP:NTEMP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This website is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominators rationale.BneiBrakPhone (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bang Bros. The topics are basically inseparable. bd2412 T 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GodsGirls[edit]

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

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Found no coverage from reliable sources through nine pages of google search. ogenstein (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The site is mentioned only in passing in some pretty weak reference material. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Clearly does not meet notability guidelines. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Pacio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after previous deletion due to not meeting WP:NMMA. As far as I can see, still does not meet WP:NMMA Hugsyrup (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing change as subject has not fought in top tier mma organisation after the 1st AfD. Fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:09, 23 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) 16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and the lack of significant coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Berutz[edit]

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

Tagged for a long while. Not close to meeting SOLDIER. Doesn't meet GNG or NCRIMINAL either. Sources in the article are a deadlink to a forum post in histmag (not a RS, and can't see what is in there), a long list in http://www.dws-xip.pl where our subject doesn't appear, and a dead link to the same site (which most probably is not a RS). Googling brings up very scant results for this name. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Nom. Poorly sourced ORPHAN page about a low-ranking, ordinary-sounding soldier in a large army. I cannot perceive any notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Too poorly sourced - no indication of academic research into him. Not seeing any reliable sources to even confirm he really existed (not a single hit in book/scholar...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Nom, E.M.Gregory, and Piotrus. I seached for sources as well and found nothing useful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:33, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Seaxe Club[edit]

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

This article has been around since 2006 but I can't find any evidence that the subject is notable. Google search results in fewer than 60 results, none of which discuss the topic in any significant way. The article itself doesn't offer any such sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm an associate member at Middlesex and had never heard of it! The club has a website, so does exist, but can't see that it is notable enough to qualify for an article. Doing a google search, most of the links are either to the club itself, or mentions of it on Middlesex website or on social media / message boards. I can't find any 3rd party news organisations make any mention of the club, let alone cover it in the sort of detail needed to make an article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 18:36, 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 redirect to List of Ukrainian records in athletics. The 100m article is not properly nominated but may be redirected at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Men's 200 metres Ukrainian record progression[edit]

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

Essentially, listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Unreferenced and possible OR. TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating editor has also just created Men's 100 metres Ukrainian record progression; I'd bundle it only I have a track record of fluffing the procedure... and there are a budle of (I think) dubious categories.TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone:, thank you for raising that! I attempted to populate both articles (on 100 and 200 metres record progression) with references to sources and hope that addresses your concern. Being the author of the same topics in Ukrainian Wikipedia, I would like to note that, unfortunately, there are no English-language sources relating to the subject of the articles in question. I listed the available sources, all in Ukrainian, in the articles. On a related point, I believe that both Ukraine-related lists appear to be now no worse than, for example, those relating to progression of Italian records. Best regards, Andrii Grebonkin (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both the 200m and 100m articles to List of Ukrainian records in athletics. Progression is really only notable for world records. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Personally the page for both of these isn't really necessary as I feel like it is just something that should fall under WP:NOTSTATS. I do understand it being allowed on the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Ukrainian is only really spoken in Ukraine. But I would say this is like creating an American progression bar of a record (aka a useless fact that easily be explained in the national article) HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As progression articles go, this is quite complete. Someone (the editor's name is Andrii Grebonkin went through a lot of effort to compile this and if they continue, we will have a listing of historical data from this country, as we already do from others. I'm not naming names because the attitude of clueless deletionists would turn those into future AfD victims too. Each of those were largely created by one inspired editor who knew where to find the information. I've done countless record progressions myself. My point is you can stop this editor's efforts right now, discourage them from contributing and wikipedia will be sanitized of this terrible content. That was sarcasm. This is the beginning of exactly the kind of body of work that wikipedia should be proud to host. We will know a lot more from this poorly covered section of the world. I know of what I speak. I was badly burned in an AfD because of the difficulty of finding sources in former Soviet republics. The press stinks there. We've got someone with inside knowledge, who speaks Ukranian, finding and understanding sources. We should praise them for helping. Oh, a redirect would be a stupid, completely useless step. All that would do is excise all of this information. There is no way to save and present this information without either a separate page, which this is, or a template with the same content. Redirect is just a way to make this content disappear without using the word delete. Trackinfo (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just who is being called a mindless deletionist here? See WP:CIVIL.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both: Per User:Ajf773. I don't see the need for these "stats" in a stand alone article either. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade but the tear-jerking plea to "save our editors" by not deleting (or redirecting) their hard work is commendable but may be somewhat melodramatic. With that actual mentality we should never delete any article especially that "might" possibly have coverage out there somewhere. I am sorry if sourcing requirements get in the way of having some articles but it is part of our "Five pillars". Claims that deletion would "excise all of this information" is not accurate as it is covered in another version of Wikipedia. I don't agree that all information in all versions of Wikipedia needs to be duplicated in every single version otherwise why not just combine then all into one? Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Buerck[edit]

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

Promotional article for an Ohio political consultant that fails WP:NPOL. A further search turned up passing references but not enough to establish WP:GNG, especially for people that work in the political field. GPL93 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political consultants can get Wikipedia articles if they can be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their own firm's self-published web presence offers technical verification that they exist. The references here are not GNG-supporting journalism about Brett Buerck, however: one is the firm's routine entry in a business directory, and the other is its own press release about itself, and these are not notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 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.

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noëlle Renée Bercy[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR (or WP:BASIC) – biggest role to date is on Cloak & Dagger (TV series), but that is merely a recurring role, not a main cast role, and so is not a "significant" role in NACTOR terms. Article has been notability tagged for nearly a year, and current sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate meeting WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether her role in Cloak & Dagger (TV series) is significant or not, she would need other significant roles in notable shows to meet WP:NACTOR. I don't find any coverage which would meet WP:GNG - I would say this is WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 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. Per DGG, this is an area rife with promotional material. The keep votes have not addressed how the references in question demonstrate any notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Practice[edit]

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

The first and third references here lack independence from the subject, and the second reference is to a twitter feed. There is no evidence here that the subject qualifies as notable. A Google News search turns up six hits, but some of these are not relevant and the others do not look like independent reliable sources: the first is to a curated set of lectures, not a review or other in-depth discussion about the lectures, and none of the other hits are related to this subject ("talking" and "practice" being two such routine words which happen to co-occur randomly a very few times on the Internet). There are more hits on a general Google search, but these are more vague in terms of their reliability, depth of discussion, and independence from the subject. Looks like a delete from my side. A loose necktie (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a reference from Archinect, and probably others can be found. If something is from Harvard University, it's probably notable. (This isn't the same thing as a king being automatically notable. It's just an observation that when Harvard does something, the world usually pays attention to it.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:NOTINHERITED reminds us to look at the sourcing for this article on its own merits. In doing so, I see no evidence to support the claim that the world has paid attention to this podcast from a school in Boston. There are shockingly few results from google nor could I find coverage looking in other places. The nom has addressed the inadequacies of the sourcing present in the article now. The inclusion in the list from Architecture conveys no significant coverage that would grant notability. This is the an example of significant coverage of another podcast on that list which is notable. So instead we should have a line or two at Harvard Graduate School of Design as an alternative to deletion and to provide appropriate coverage for our readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. A loose necktie (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dezeen reviewed this podcast and stated that it was one of the top fourteen podcasts on the subject of design and architecture. ^[1] Also, the guests on the podcast are quite renown, many of whom have wikipedia biographies, and speaks to the quality of the production and its significance. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/23/architecture-design-podcasts/#disqus_thread

References

^ https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/23/architecture-design-podcasts/#disqus_thread

This isn't some general list of podcasts, this is about architectural podcasts. Inclusion on such a list remains the kind that does not show notability - indeed only 1 of the podcasts has its own existing Wikipedia entry, 99 PI which I showed an example of significant coverage demonstrating notability about above, and another 1, Monocle on Design, is mentioned in an article on the sponsoring organization which is exactly the sort of inclusion that seems appropriate here (e-flux has an article, with its own troubles, but does not mention the podcast in the article as of this edit only the organization). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient evidence of being a notable podcast. This is one of the areas where we need to be careful about inclusion, and inclusion on a list is an impossibly eak criterion in this field. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 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 Wrong venue. Redirects should be nominated at WP:RFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Golden enema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The re-directed article does not mention this and this redirect replaced a sentence about a subject found only in pornographic sources.Helen4780 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wrong location (should be at WP:RFD as it's a redirect), however you could add a sentence to the target article using non-pornographic sources ([23],[24],[25],...) if you were so inclined. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've returned the article to being a re-redirect, albeit now to a section of the original and I removed the template. Also, I put what you wrote as a comment above the re-direct. I'll put doing something better on my to-do list. Helen4780 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. The discussion appears to have been somewhat resolved, but the tag and this page remain, so I'll fix the parts that need fixing and let others judge whether further discussion is necessary. --Finngall ^talk 14:15, 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.

The result was merge to Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connections (journal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was taken to AfD a bit less than a year ago, but that debate suffered from very low participation. Since then, the situation has not improved. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevant WP:NJournals verbiage:

Criteria: If a journal meets any (boldface emphasis original) of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article. If a journal meets none of these criteria, it may still qualify for a stand-alone article, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which the material is verifiable through third-party sources. However, see the remarks section below before applying this guidance. Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.

The journal has been used as a source by NATO and the EastWest Institute. --2601:444:380:3A90:9C24:7E84:F43A:B918 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not completely correct. Some people related to those organizations published an article in this journal, which was reproduced on their websites. Nothing was said about the journal itself. Two citations doesn't show that a journal is "influential in its subject area". --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Please note that the aboved cited WP:NJournals is an essay, not policy. --MrClog (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Speedy keep, per SNOW if you like: nominator User:WildChild300 clearly did not do their homework, and is advised that there was a time that the World Wide Web did not exist. Whoa, this is the Jurgens of Van den Bergh/Jurgens? Hint: check Google Books. This is the first hit. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonius Johannes Jurgens[edit]

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

There are no reliable references on this figure. Most other websites detailing life on this figure are just a copy and paste of the Wikipedia page, which would be absolutely useless to reference. The others are sketchy family tree websites, which don’t seem very reliable. WildChild300 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pointer to this person's entry in the Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland is right there in the article, and was helpfully supplied by the article's creator back in 2005. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is obviously notable as the linked Dutch Biographical Dictionary article gives him the leading role in a major Dutch company from 1888 to 1939 then in the formation of Unilever. The article needs a lot of work as it does not explain his role and has no inline citations, but that is not a reason for deletion. The article mentions half way through that he was called Anton Jurgens so histories of Unilever often use that name.TSventon (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With an entry in a dictionary of national biography, he obviously meets WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historically important businessman and also served in the Dutch Senate. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. It seems that the nominator needs reminding that the World Wide Web didn't yet exist in the early twentieth century when the subject was active, so a web search is not the way to go about investigating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 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. Tone 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANX (Hong Kong company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no mainstream RSes. WP:BEFORE shows crypto sites and a very occasional passing mention. The RSes on this aren't improved. Was recreated after its deletion at its first AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Nexgen. I'd love to be shown wrong, but I'm seeing negligible notability and little prospect of improvement. David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:CORP. -Zanhe (talk) 07:59, 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. As pointed out in the nomination, there are several issues with this article that cannot be fixed here. If a 3rd party list existed separately, that would be another story. Tone 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest twins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. No established notability of the list per WP:LISTN, as none of the provided sources discusses a list of oldest twins. The only cited source that is a list, http://www.grg.org/EAKralTwins.htm, has not been updated since 2012. This article is a WP:SYNTHESIS juxtaposition of occasional "old twins" cases reported by local press. Most sources for "known living" twins are several years old, and therefore provide no assurance that these people are still alive. In summary, I do not believe this article can be saved. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination), the nomination fails to address the previous nomination which had a result of "KEEP". This is therefore a vexatious repeat nomination contrary to WP:DELAFD. As the nomination hasn't followed WP:BEFORE, we needn't waste our time on the detail. Twins have been extensively studied per twin study and it seems likely that their longevity will be of especial interest to establish the extent to which nature versus nurture affects lifespan. Andrew D. (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD happened in 2011; it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a new discussion after several years. WP:Consensus can change. — JFG ^talk 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia had improved somewhat between 2005 and 2011, but the fact that even as late as October 2012 the deletion of the crap fanispamcruftisement article Tanka prose was still controversial proves we definitely weren't "there" yet. Not only can consensus change, but in cases like this it can practically be taken as a given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing on what this page looked like then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, but the 2011 discussion shouldn't hold much weight; at that time the Gerontology Research Group army of acolytes, as stated here, treated this subject as their playground and ran roughshod over basic policy. The consensus then has no bearing on the current view of how to handle this subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references in the article. The news media considers it notable enough to talk about them for being twins and over a hundred years old. If that many new sources around the world cover such things, then it clearly is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dream Focus You're comparing apples and oranges. Read WP:LISTN and then think about the fact that these media articles talk only about specific local cases, not large groups of twins ranked by age, which is what is being done on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It proves it is a topic that is notable. That anyone who achieves this anywhere in the world will get news coverage. Dream Focus 14:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanket statement is obviously false and shows that you do not understand how any of this works. Just because there is sporadic local coverage about old twins "over there" does not mean a list of oldest twins is suddenly notable "over here". To have a list like this on Wikipedia, there needs to be WP:SIGCOV reliable sources that LIST people in this same manor, but there aren't because this article is fancruft and not based on applicable coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt its just local newspaper coverage, but state and national coverage at times as well. Anyway, it also gets coverage in books such as being a regular entry in Guinness World Records. Google book search for "oldest twins" "Guinness World Records" and you'll find different yearly editions covering that. Dream Focus 14:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the record in Guinness and while they do give out records for the oldest living male and female sets of twins, that does not prove your point, but mine. They have no LIST of oldest twins by age as far as I can tell, which is what would be necessary for this article to exist. You don't seem to understand that the topic of old twins getting coverage does nothing to justify this article because sustained WP:SIGCOV reliable sources do not specifically group people this way. It's APPLES and Oranges. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an example of an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is just a WP:SYNTH of various news reports about random cases of old twins, but WP:RS, other then an old GRG table which does nothing to prove notability, don't group people in this format, so there is no justification that we should do so here on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject easily meets WP:GNG - covered by many major news outlets. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lubbad85 (☎) What major news outlets or other reliable sources publish long lists of oldest twins ranked by age? Only longevity fan sites do, hence why this article fails WP:LISTN. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but I can't see how anyone could possibly support the maintenance of an article that assumes a pair of twins who turned 100 in 2013 are still alive, and that calculates their age as of right now, and presumably would not allow for the removal of such persons without a source specifically verifying that one of them has died. This is such an obvious violation of so many Wikipedia policies (V, NOR, BLP...) that anyone seriously arguing that this content be kept (let alone speedily kept) should probably have their contributions thoroughly scrutinized by the community to ensure that they have not violated these policies elsewhere on the site. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As Hijiri points out, this is a nightmare from a maintenance and WP:V standpoint. As well as that, it is a load of WP:SYNTH. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , about a perfect example of a pointless list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate collection of news snippets. This pretends to be an overview but is not, only a random accumulation. How do we know they are alive ? Do they send profs of life to some central data collection center ? And what could be the encyclopedic value of this kind of list ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an indiscriminate list that appears to be WP:OR. I'm not sure any reliable sources cover this topic - I only found one in a before search and it doesn't appear reliable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Pacatiw[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has not fought in top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO notability requirements CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable MMA fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saygid Guseyn Arslanaliev[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has not fought in top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMA notability requirements CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Egypt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zebaztian Kadestam[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Has not fought for top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgetwins[edit]

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

no clear evidence of notability -- refs are almost entirely to their own youtube postings. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 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 redirect to 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Irvoas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous nomination already mentioned that the subject is not notable and that Wikipedia is not a memorial.

A common reason for wanting to keep the article was that they were notable simply because they were a victom of the 2005 Paris suburb riots and that more information would be added as the media obtained and released more information, however this obviously did not happen. The only citation on there even returns a 404 error now.

Some people supported merging it with 2005 French riots, however 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec is already more exhaustive than the article.

Article has been sitting in limbo for 13 years. Time to let it go? -- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Take a look at all the references available published over a span of several years by Le Figaro, or this Google News search. Nptability depends on the references that exist, not just on those referenced in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - There may not be a specific guideline on this situation, but if an article has been tagged as needing references for more than five/ten/thirteen years and no one tags it, it is time to delete it and allow another editor to create a properly sourced article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec as there's nothing new to merge and as an WP:ATD. He's a name which seems to have staying power as pointed out by Eastmain but does not seem to have the sort of biographical detail or coverage we would expect of notable figures. A redirect serves our reader to where information can be found of interest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I actually might withdraw the nomination and propose the page be redirected and marked with {{R with possibilities}}.-- The Man Known as Rektroth (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Page nominated for deletion frwiki : fr:Discussion:Jean-Claude Irvoas/Suppression in 2012. There are many news items but the thing is, they are focused on the assassination (and right-wing political websites using his case, which are not what I'd call "reliable sources"). However, some national newspapers also described his life before such as Le Monde, which may help the WP article grow a bit. --- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 23:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little sustained coverage to the incident, let alone the person. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 03:31, 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) 08:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RIP, but redirect to 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Clearly sad but not individually notable. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 French riots#Murders of Jean-Claude Irvoas and Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec per Barkeep49. -Zanhe (talk) 00:51, 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 speedy delete. Clearly a DUCK of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vukhudo/Archive so G5ing SmartSE (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayush Diwan Khurana[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that address the topic directly and in details. The article was created as a redirect by Nikhil.fali, but later it was changed to a normal article by an anonymous IP. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vukhudo/Archive for more. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:27, 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 redirect to NASCAR Xfinity Series. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 NASCAR Xfinity Series[edit]

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

Short article withat of sources . Clearly WP:TOOSOON , a Google search throws up only race schedules and no information about teams or drivers . Kpg jhp jm 04:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to NASCAR Xfinity Series This doesn't need a discussion and should be reverted to the first revision. --Wow (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Wow. The 2019 article was created in August 2018 which seems about correct in terms of when there will be news to track for this season. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no confirmed drivers for the series. Too soon. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of Groningen[edit]

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

Permastub. The label "Rest of Groningen" is a transparent description used in the list of COROP regions; no separate article can ever add information other than in the COROP context Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- These articles are a terrible idea. Terrible. You can't just find some combination of words in a reference somewhere and decide that's a topic. Reyk _YO! 05:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the mass-created COROP articles. Such statistical areas are not automatically notable and may nevertheless be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 07:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:GEOLAND explicitly states that census tracts are usually not considered notable. So if there is no claim of notability in the article, it doesn't belong. SpinningSpark 11:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless deletion nomination Nominator claims: The label "Rest of Groningen" is a transparent description used in the list of COROP regions. It is not a trasparent description. It is also NUTS-3 region too: I have no idea what above wiki users are doing by recommending to delete without even searching what it is. This is non-professional. At least try to undestand what it is (https://www.regioatlas.nl/indelingen/indelingen_indeling/t/nuts_3_regio_s) (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=42UkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a NUTS division does not mean it should have a page. Your rationale appears to be an WP:INHERITED argument. In fact, as I stated above, GEOLAND says that it probably shouldn't have an article because the purpose of the NUTS divisions is primarily only for the gathering of statistics. NUTS divisions that also correspond to an official political or administrative boundary are going to be notable, but then they probably already have articles in which it can be mentioned that they are a NUTS division. SpinningSpark 21:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:GEOLAND, which explicitly does not apply to census tracts, which is what I assume COROP regions are in the Netherlands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GEO and for reasons given above, i note that the article does not provide the reader with any additional information that isn't already at COROP#List of municipalities by COROP region (apart from references that can be added to the parent article), any other COROP articles like this should also be deleted. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bulls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY (doesn't appear to have any appearances in fully-professional games), fails WP:GNG. – Levivich 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass NFOOTY. A bit of coverage in the local capitalgazette.com on his coaching, but not sufficient for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NFOOTY and none of the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilson (presenter)[edit]

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

Potentially notable, but no RS to support article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable but needs more references to secure this article's place on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having a job is not a basis for notability - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how you can argue that someone who has been presenting on television and radio for nearly 40 years is not notable. WP:GNG has easily been met. I've also added more independent references. Rillington (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:12, 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 keep. Consensus now leans towards this being notable enough for an article, and some content issues have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outrage porn[edit]

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

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of reliable sources mentioning the subject and giving examples of it. The term was first used in The New York Times in 2009, was still being discussed in 2014, 2016. As they are discussing examples of the concept this goes beyond a pure WP:DICDEF. I did think about whether a merge with Clickbait might not be a better idea but they don't seem to be quite the same thing. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all op-eds, they are unreliable sources in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's three books also referencing Kreider's definition in reasonable depth: 1 2 3. There's also this book that seems to be entirely about what it describes as "Outrage journalism" and "Outrage-based political media content" which appears to be an identical concept - however I don't have access to a complete copy of it though per WP:NEXIST all we need to know is that the sourcing likely exists. From what can be seen in the preview version available on Amazon, it offers a full definition of "Outrage journalism" and "outrage media". FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article. Come on mate, this is getting a bit tired to say the least. Bacondrum (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what matters is showing that the references exist. The present state of the article is not the deciding point as there is no deadline on Wiki. If you're tired, have a nap - Wiki will still be there tomorrow. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, what matters is that it actually belongs here. As it stands this article is not an established terminology, or an encyclopedic subject and does not cite reliable sources. Improve it if you want. I am going to bed.

Sweet dreams. The present state of the article is not the deciding point at AFD. It is clearly possible for this article to contain a full definition, beyond a dictionary definition, of this term based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and therefore it meets WP:GNG and does not fail WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary It's an obscure neologism, the page has no reliable sources, feel free to improve the article. Bacondrum (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Wikipedia is not a dictionary The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. All sources provided to date are random op-eds authored by people with no particular expertise in related fields. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck this !vote as it duplicates the nom which already counts as a "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually thought this was a more popular term than it is. I've heard it used to describe "(Ideology X) CRINGE compilation" style videos on Youtube, but it seems like the definition is still being developed and is much broader than that. It's really just slang/neologism right now and doesn't seem deserving of an article. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. There are a number of books and papers directly about this term. This nomination is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination), though the nominator wasn't quite so egregious about removing sources at this article before nominating for deletion. The term is related to many other articles like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, and/or outrage culture and there is likely an argument to be made for a single article that describes each of these terms collectively instead of so many separate articles. But, until that merger happens, there is enough independent, reliable sources for outrage porn to be kept. In the most extreme case it could potentially be merged to one of the above links, but I don't think that is the appropriate outcome given the available sources. - Paul^T+/_C 04:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did consider a merge to Moral panic but I'm not sure they're the same thing. Also a rename to "outrage media" or "outrage journalism" might be warranted - at least one of the references discusses these as being essentially the same phenomena and there seems to be at least some academic, qualitative and quantitative research around its prevalence (e.g., the work by Berry and Sobieraj at Tufts). FOARP (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to Keep though it may seem like synthesis of published material. I understand that there is still concern. If the community tends to delete, can a transwiki soft redirect to wikt:outrage_porn work?--94rain ^Talk 15:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has sufficient WP:RS in the article to at least technically meet WP:GNG (which it does; I have added several more references to the article in this regard). Might not be a major term, but the references show that it has remained in use right up the current date per Ocasio-Cortez Exploited as Clickbait and Outrage Porn Magnet (April 2019). Britishfinance (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that I have also clicked on the find sources "books" and "scholar" tool, this is a solid "keep" with discussion on the founder and what it means in even more sources. Will try and add more of these; and credit to FOARP and Psantora who have also materially improved this article since nomination with additions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Britishfinance and FOARP, and WP:HEY. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed WP:HEY, I think the article is a lot better now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not going to get into the weeds of the sourcing with this one due to the nature of the topic, but my searches show an easy keep on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Britishfinance and searches reveal the notability of the subject. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Ball Pets[edit]

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

Article created by a paid editor. Only two sources exist mentioning this company, both are paid product placements published in small-town newspapers. A Google search turns up nothing, and there is no other mention of Facebook Headquarters having shown this company interest. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are other refs but nothing that looks to me like reliable and independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two newspaper articles appear to be in-depth and written by newspaper staff. There is no evidence that they are "paid product placements". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found an article about marimo balls in The New York Times, so the marimo balls themselves are notable. I do not think the company is. I think the solution is to move the article to Marimo ball. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They seemed like paid promotions to me due to the "ORDER ONLINE", "lifetime VIP membership that gives you 15 percent off", "Visit MossBallPets.com" (but I may be mistaken). The main article on the subject is marimo, it is indeed notable. (Have now created a redirect to it from your link, Marimo ball) – Þjarkur (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a paid editor and I am a still a member of the Wikipedia community. There are many people who do not disclose their COI in the hopes of keeping their article posted. I have no issue with letting readers and editors know that I am a paid editor, instead of thinking of me as the advertising department for Moss Ball Pets (because I am not) try and remember that I am a person who is as interested in providing relevant and non promotional material for the use of the project.
- → Click on the highlighted text to review the earlier posts that @Þjarkur: made in the talk pages on my user page and the article and my response. ←
- @Þjarkur: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is not a part of Wikipedia's guidelines for COI but it is meant to be used so that new editors have a better understanding of the regulations in place with COI editing. It would probably be in all editors best interest to review the actual Wikipedia guidelines as outlined on the COI page. Upon reviewing it, you'll find that not only am I allowed to make uncontroversial edits (again, see COI to understands what this constitutes) but I am also allowed to take at least five other measures to make necessary minor improvements that could potentially keep situations such as this from arising.
- You can view history on the Moss Ball Pets page to see how I and other editors have made continuous edits to preserve the article in its entirety while also removing any wording that could be seen as advertising or promotional in any manner. Shouldn't an editor's primary goal be to enhance the project through editing and not deletion?

Tierra.watkins (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is hard to believe that @Þjarkur:'s edits were made in good faith considering how quickly certain sources of reliable and verifiable information were deemed paid promotional content with no evidence of that in any way being the case.Tierra.watkins (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hope "Moss Ball Pets" one day achieve the notability of Pet Rocks or Sea-Monkeys, but even then, those articles focus on the phenomena or inventors of the concepts, not the company or individual who distributed it. Perhaps the author would consider creating an article on marimo balls as a phenomena. A quick search reveals dozens of companies promoting and distributing them. Orville1974 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking multiple reliable independent secondary sources covering it in significant detail as required by NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is just as relevant as the long established pages of Pet Rocks and Sea-Monkeys, a quick search will show that you can buy brine shrimp and rocks from 100's of different vendors but the companies as a brand have relevance. The Moss Ball Pets article may be a work in progress but to delete it entirely is a step backwards. In regards to the validity of the two newspaper articles they are organic and show no evidence of being a paid promotion. Personally I am an avid fan and follower of this company and they are very relevant in the House Plant Hobby Communities I am involved with. -Chris Huckeba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.217.22 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC) — 174.87.217.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

@Þjarkur: Thank you for adding the signature to my KEEP vote, I am not familiar with all the proper tags as you can see. Pointing out that I don't have many other edits in Wikipedia however does not discredit my point of view on this matter. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.217.22 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Have you made any other contributions to wikipedia, as it happens, or is this your first one? And I see that again you forgot to sign. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject of the contested article is the corporation and not the type of product the corporation sells. And the article's subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gnome The article actually was focused much more on the product before it was mostly wiped by Þjarkur. The potential is there, let's keep the page and develop it to the correct standards. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was not, this is the previous version and it mainly focused on Mr. Buscay and the company, with a section copied from the main marimo article. At best it was a coatrack article. Relevant information about marimo in the aquatic trade can be added to the main article. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have beed CSDed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 03:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has just as much relevance as 1000's of similar articles on Wikipedia. As stated previously, this article is similar to Pet Rocks and Sea-Monkeys articles and should be given a chance to be developed to a useful and informative piece of content for the Moss Ball Pets craze that is quickly becoming popular in the United States. Let's keep this article and work on improving it. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Hecticlyrelaxed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- On 23:05, 2 May 2019‎ Þjarkur removed a substantial amount of information that made this article more complete, instead of trying to fix or offer constructive edits this information was just deleted. As I have said before this article does have relevance. Instead of tossing it away it should remain so that the community can develop it into an informative article that meets the standards of quality expected here on Wikipedia.Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll note that this is the third single purpose account voting Keep here, and that they have made the exact same kind of edits as the IP 174.87.217.22 above: [26] [27] – Þjarkur (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full disclosure the account 174.87.217.22 mentioned by Þjarkur was a post by me before I created my official account so no funny business is going on here. Also as part of my disclosure, as of yet this is the only article I have made edits on so far as I am well aware of Moss Ball Pets and the following they have in the House Plant and Pet community and truly believe the article has relevance. Maybe not for Þjarkur but for 10,000's of people in the United States who have joined the craze of the Moss Ball Pet. The company obviously did not invent the Marimo Ball but they have developed the concept of the "pet" and introduced it to the masses. Just as the Company The Pet Rock did not invent the rock and Sea-Monkeys did not invent the brine shrimp. The accusation of being a sock puppet is false.Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can strike your above vote using <s>Keep</s> as you can't really !vote using multiple accounts. Regards, – Þjarkur (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My vote above is part of new additional comments made after the relisting request was made. Please stop harassing me. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to your attention, Hecticlyrelaxed, that through voting under an alias you are violating Wikipedia policy is not harassment. I'd suggest more civility towards other editors and less assumption of bad faith in other editors, most of whom, incidentally, are not paid to be here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Due to unsigned comments, an IP address, and Hectic's comments, I'm now confused. As I look through this discussion, I see three keep !votes, but I believe they're all from Hecticlyrelaxed (who happens to be a new account that has only edited this article and the one on Marimo). Am I tracking this conversation right? Do we have three votes from an apparent COI (so really just one) to save the article, while every other editor has given valid reasons why this article should not exist?

-Above unsigned comment by Orville1974. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

[Orville1974] You are not tracking it quite right. You have 3 Keep Votes, one from me when I had no account which is the IP Address you mentioned. And a second one from me as [Hecticlyrelaxed] which I thought was required as the status here went to relisted. I am obviously not aware of the procedures here and I do apologize for that. So the third Keep vote has no association with me although I do agree with their sentiments obviously as a supporter of this article. Yes, I have only made edits on the [Moss Ball Pets] and [Marimo] page to date. That I have already disclosed, you have to start somewhere and this is a subject that I happen to know something about so felt compelled to contribute. Hecticlyrelaxed (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for clearing that up. Please change your second keep to comment so it's clearer that you are just adding additional arguments, and not registering a second !vote. Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra.watkins created the article on 10 April, and the IP edited it in less than 48 hours later. Given 180 total pageviews in this time frame and most of them being from creator, new page patrollers and recent changes reviewers, it seems highly unlikely that the page would have randomly ended up on an uninvolved and inactive (only 2 edits before that) IP's screen. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND as they are not independent and of those that discuss the company, classic churnalism. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. If the article is about the company, it's clearly delete - no reliable refs. If it's about the species Aegagropila linnaei - it's a well developed article, with a small section at the end saying approx. "some folks in Japan sell these." Adding "and somebody in the US now sells these" (and not much more) shouldn't be a problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even worth merging in this promotional article by a coi editor. The reason we are somewhat skeptical about article writing by coi editors is shown clearly by the discussion above, where the editor tries to say that this is notable because pet rock is notable. Making this sort of absurd comparisons is in my experience almost always a sign of COI--it can actually be said by them in good faith--with enough coi, the comparison seems to make sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are roughly equally divided. While I think the "delete" side have done a better job of analyzing the sources, reasonable people can disagree about how much weight to give the - by some accounts quite substantial, by other accounts not very serious - coverage of this man. Sandstein 18:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Good[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is just a bibliography of the subject Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Autobiographies is not necessarily a reason for deletion. If the subject both fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it may be deleted.--94rain ^Talk 01:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article. I believe it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BIO (in particular WP:BASIC but also if he is considered to be WP:ACADEMIC then the criteria I believe he satisfies there is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.") The article has multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, from Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a number from the BBC. The Irish Independent source says Good "is regarded as a world expert on alien phenomena." The BBC sources say "Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon" / "Timothy Good is recognised as one of the world's leading authorities in the UFO phenomenon and has given lectures and interviews on television and radio all around the world" and "Timothy has written numerous best-selling books on UFOs and aliens ... and has acted as a consultant to several US Congress investigations into the phenomenon." -Lopifalko (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A previously deleted article showed he wasn't notable as a violinist, and this bibliography does not demonstrate his notability as a writer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~conditionally~~ Doing some research I see that the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command considers him notabable enough to list on their official Unidentified Flying Objects Research Guide as a "Selected Published Source" for researchers, which is meaningful in my opinion. However, in six months if it is still a basic Stub class biography with no expanded sourced material to qualify as a Start class, then delete would be appropriate. Start class is "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete." 5Q5 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see my additional comment and update below. 5Q5 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my input from Keep conditionally to a full Keep. When this article was nominated it contained just 109 words or so excluding references and was graded a Stub-class article on the talk page. It has since expanded (partly by me and mostly by the article's creator) to over four times that size and I now feel it qualifies with the inclusion of a mainstream media outlet (the BBC) calling him an international expert in his field and the article has at least has upgraded to a Start class. 5Q5 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP applies here. At first glance, the sources seem reasonable. However, upon close examination they treat the subject with a WP:SENSATIONAL angle (Example: [28]). If reliable sources merely sensationalize and don't bother to critically examine and evaluate Good's fringe claims (aliens briefed George Washington, secret bases under the ocean, conspiracy by world governments, malevolent aliens vs good aliens, etc) then we have no serious source material from which to write an objective biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The claims in major media that he is a recognized expert on certain fringe topics would seem on its face to be enough for notability, but (per FRINGEBLP as cited above and per WP:NPOV) we also need sources that directly respond to his fringe views and provide a neutral mainstream view of them. Do such sources exist? They do not appear to be included in the article in its current state. Right now we only say that he is "a lecturer on the subject" but not what is positions are nor how mainstream they are, and I don't think that's an acceptable state to leave the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can try to add this, perhaps from reviews of his books. Also, there is a review on his web site from The Sunday Times that I could try to source, which says: "Overall Beyond Top Secret is a fascinating and well-documented book that makes a convincing case. The evidence that Good has amassed is too overwhelming to ignore and it is clear that a more open debate is long overdue." I can also remove the unsatisfactorily sourced "lecturer". -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the week since you posted that, you have not added them. The article is still lacking sufficient reliable secondary sources to change my vote to delete. You should have used these sources in drafting the original article. If they were adequate, it would have saved a lot of other editors' time. If you couldn't find enough, it would have saved your time. TFD (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Four Deuces: I did remove that he was a lecturer. I may not have had an opportunity to learn how to find the paywalled / offline sources (The Sunday Times) but I have been following this discussion and added plenty more of the sources that have come up. At the time this article was nominated for deletion it had 4 sources from the BBC, 2 from HuffPost, and 1 apiece from the Irish Independent, ABC, The New York Times, the CIA and New Scientist. 11 in total. I do not think that I am to blame for not adequately sourcing this article and wasting peoples' time. Now it has 28 sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't see anything about what his contributions to ufology are. I created an article about Kenneth Goff, who coincidentally was also a leading ufologist, although I didn't mention it in his article. (I'll have to do that.) While I had come across his name as a leading figure in anti-Communism and the far right, I made sure I had sufficient sources to explain his views, influence and credibility to create an article. TFD (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @The Four Deuces: Obviously it is ideal to, but if I absolutely must go as far as to describe a person's "views, influence and credibility" in order to create a biographical article then I have learned something. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are sources that he is a world expert on ufology, there is very little other information about him in reliable sources. WP:ACADEMIC does not apply because he is not an academic. While similar criteria could apply to pseudo-scientists as well, the article would need to explain what that contribution was. For example Copernicus "formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe," Isaac Newton "laid the foundations of classical mechanics," Einstein "developed the theory of relativity." We don't just say they were really important scientists and leave it at that. TFD (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I can try to add what his contribution is, if I can source reviews of his books. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it add to his notability that Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender and Peter Hill-Norton have written forewords for some of his books? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again from 5Q5 (Keep ~~conditionally~~, above). I remember buying Good's first book when it came out, later donated it to a library, but am not familiar with the content of the subsequent ones. Based on their titles and subtitles, however, they seem less geared toward neutral examinations of alien visitation theory and more toward pronouncements of sensational claims as fact. Phil Klass mentioned him a few times that I could find in the Internet Archive: Skeptics UFO Newsletter, #75 Spring 2003 Klass: Britain's Timothy Good, who first made public the original MJ-12 documents in the belief they were authentic, has since changed his opinion. Also, he was one of the first to spot that some of Tim Cooper's 'new' MJ-12 documents were written on Cooper's own personal typewriter [SUN #60/Nov. 1999]. Unlike the late UFO book author-lecturer media personality Stanton Friedman, Timothy Good doesn't have an entry on IMDb and if ever mentioned or reviewed in Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic magazines, those articles are currently not online. In my opinion, if an author doesn't have a large enough mainstream media profile (yet) to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, that is either the fault of the written works to be newsmaking enough or the author's lack of a public relations effort to get mainstream press coverage. Perhaps one day Mr. Good will achieve those goals and someone can retry with a more developed article. For now, I still say keep the stub article for awhile to see if anyone can dig up more balanced referenced material, then delete if none can be found. 5Q5 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a link to his entry on IMDb. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I missed that. Update, I dug up some mainstream and skeptically sourced material (BBC, Klass, etc.) and added it to the article. It might even be considered a "developing, but incomplete" Start-class bio now instead of a basic Stub, in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a stub is not a reason for deletion, his works have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The Times and he is an expert in his field according to reliable sources such as the BBC so he should be included. Obviously the UFO subject is controversial so neutral reliable sourcing is essential, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added an expanded list of "Film and TV documentary appearances" and removed "lecturer". -Lopifalko (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Noted author and clearly worthy of having a Wikipedia article, regardless of what one thinks of his subject material. Jusdafax (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both sides made some good points but Atlantic306 won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there are no actual UFOs. Howerer, there are reviews of his book, feature coverage, SIGCOV of him in articles about UFOS going back decades and best evaluated for notability in a news archive search. I may wish that Good's sort of martian-credulity didn't exist, but it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC) rethinking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was well discussed. Barca (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is GNG and sources are sufficient. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other editors are being duped here. The reviews of his "work", such as they are, are of the WP:SENSATIONal variety and the problem is one of WP:FRIND where the only in-depth sources which discuss Good as a person are hopelessly conflicted. It is not possible to write a neutral and verifiably sourced article on this person because he is not notable enough a WP:FRINGEBLP. This also smacks a bit of WP:SOAP. Is the author of this article conflicted in some way? jps (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflicted" in what way jps? -Lopifalko (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno! I cannot understand your motivation for recreating a deleted article on an obscure UFOlogist. The fact that you claim he is a congressional consultant (which is a self-congratulatory claim that is verified by precisely no one) looks like you might be his publicist. jps (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jps, I've written articles on 121 different people. 90 of those have been on photographers but 31 have been on totally random people. Why would I happen to be the publicist of this one in particular? I read Good's Beyond Top Secret many years ago. Recently I cleared out books and noticed this. I looked him up and was surprised there was no article on him, given how well renowned I remember him being all those years ago (amongst people, not necessarily amongst citable sources). He hardly seems "obscure", given his many books published by major publishers. I started the article from a nostalgic point of view and to see if one were possible; and continued it because it seemed he was provably notable. People write articles for all sorts of reasons that can never be guessed at, and why should we; to critique their motives when there are a plethora of independent reliable sources backing them up seems churlish. If the BBC and HuffPost talk about him having been "a consultant to several US Congressional investigations into UFOs" then why _not_ mention that in the article? -Lopifalko (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a history in WP:FRINGE articles at Wikipedia with WP:PROMOTION, so we have to be on the look-out. I appreciate your explanation and want to assure you that I am only questioning this out of an abundance of caution and wish more people were transparent as you are being. To be clear, Huffpost is notoriously credulous when it comes to pseudoscience and the BBC articles seem to me to be suffering from WP:SENSATIONalism (there is no attempt to actually investigate the subject dispassionately). UFOs are fringe topics liable to attract more scrutiny because of the problems we have with Wikipedia being used to promote nonsense. It seems like promotion of nonsense is exactly what is occurring here. jps (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Thanks for clarifying what's going on. Remarkably, I hadn't still hadn't genned up on WP:FRINGE, and was confused by the increased oversight for a straight forward article, but I get it now. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These topics are tricky and have a long history here at Wikipedia. The problem is that a lot of the claims this person makes are incorrect, but they are so superficially incorrect that there are not sources commenting directly on his claims. This tends to raise red flags in terms of notability (and is, thus, my primary reason for !voting "delete"). This is typically the tactic Wikipedia has taken with respect to these subjects and why his biography was deleted in the past. An alternative technique might be to relax the original research rules and allow for critical analysis that is absent in the source material, but the problem with this is that we have no way to vet WP:EXPERTs at Wikipedia and so if you accept original research that is high-quality you would also end up accepting original research that is low-quality. Deletion is a way to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia while simultaneously also avoiding sticky discussions about what to do with demonstrably incorrect ideas. jps (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The aspersions being cast by editor jps are a patent violation of WP:NPA. Being personally called a “dupe” and seeing Lopifalko’s good faith being blatantly smeared is a matter of concern far beyond the Afd we were previously having a civil discussion about. I’d like a non-involved admin to review the comments editor jps has made here, which I believe to be actionable. Jusdafax (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me personally, this is not the correct venue to discuss it. I suggest moving this to somewhere more appropriate. jps (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (5Q5, keep). I dug up some more citable phrases establishing the subject's international notability, at least beginning in 1987: "Timothy Good, Britain's leading UFO researcher" The Observer, 1987, London, England, The Salina Journal, Salina, Kansas, 1987, The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Illinois, 1987. / "British journalist Good" Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1988. [End refs] These that I've just mentioned aren't sensational or fringe claims, just basic descriptions of a nonfiction book's author, which should be considered separate from any other content in the cited article that may otherwise include some sensational material (think articles about time travel, parallel universes, etc.}.

Other Wikipedia articles that already exist on Good:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good
https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8A%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%93%D1%83%D0%B4
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Good

(Comment contd) As you know, there is a "better source needed" tag available if an editor is not happy. If Phil Klass wrote about him multiple times then surely there must be one or more back issues of The Skeptical Inquirer pre-Internet era where he gets discussed that could be added as balance in the future. I expect skeptics will look into that. For the record, I don't know Mr. Good directly or indirectly. Due to government and even United Nations interest in the topic of UFOs I don't think it's deserving of the label fringe as say the topics of fairies and bigfoot would be. There is a mainstream aspect to it definitely, in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an astronomer, I can tell you, 5Q5 that your opinion is based on ignorance and supposition rather than fact of what is visible in the sky. Also, our opinions do not matter on Wikipedia. The fact that you are WP:POVPUSHing this idea that UFOs are "mainstream" makes me question as to whether you should be editing in this area. See WP:CIR. jps (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jps, per WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." I didn't write that UFOs are mainstream. I wrote that an aspect of the topic is. I also didn't equate the term UFOs with alien visitation. A UFO could be a meteor and often is. I don't have a CD or print back-issue collection of the Skeptical Inquirer to do an in-depth search for critical quotes about Good, but here (see badufos.blogspot.com/2014/02/) is a 2014 notability description with criticism by skeptic and CSI fellow Robert Sheaffer that you can add to the article in a Criticism section right now with my full encouragement: "well-known British UFOlogist Timothy Good, long known for promoting dubious claims..." 5Q5 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't dealing with the substance of the criticism. When a skeptic scoffs at a pseudoscientist like Good with an off-handed comment, this is not something on which to build a WP:BLP. In-depth sources are important to establish notability. Right now, we have hack churnalism and sneering. I also note that you are the one trying to equate UFOlogy with time travel (which exists) and parallel universes (which are a serious topic of academic debate) as opposed to bigfoot and fairies. We absolutely should have an article on UFOs. We should not have an article on 3rd rate charlatans who sell stories to breathless journalists like Good whether they are believers in alien contact, monsters, or magic pixie dust. jps (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment from 5Q5 (keep). Another British UFO book author Jenny Randles has a minor biographical article on Wikipedia with substantially less references. Her article survived a deletion nomination in 2008. I say publish Good's developing Start-class article and place the same header template that is on Randles'. Here are some more skeptical and mainstream source material for any interested editor to use to provide balance to Good's article:

The Skeptic magazine UK (He gave a lecture they sponsored. Contains info from Good's publisher.)
Australian Skeptics (book review)
Australian Skeptics (book reviews)
Google search: site:thetimes.co.uk "Timothy Good" (At least one of Good's books was on The Times's UK bestseller list. The site has a paywall.)

I don't see any point in commenting further. I don't intend to do any additional work on or to monitor Good's article. The editor who created it should have done more homework before uploading it. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, for us to write a biography, we need sources that attest to this person's biography. We need more than book reviews and blurbs about events from 15 years ago. WP:NAUTHOR does not seem to be met by your proposed list. jps (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not exactly. With writers, artists and other WP:CREATIVE types, if the work is notable , we can have a page - even if the author is anonymous. Bio details not required. Of course, Good is not exactly Elena Ferrante, more like Ibn Warraq, or Mark A. Gabriel, a pseudonym, for a writer whose work is considered FRINGE by some - although it's hard ot be as FRINGE as believing in UFOs. the page on Gabriel has been taken to AfD and kept 3 separate times: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Gabriel (3rd nomination). We really don't need bio details.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the work is notable, then it should be possible to find some sources about the person making the work (if not, we just write about the work). These reviews are not exactly screaming "notable creative-type" here. jps (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, We have a problem. The problem is that the page is edited and maintained by editors intent on the anti-reality narrative the UFOs exist and that Good is a leading expert on the real and documented phenomenon of members strange alien species popping down to to earth for a visit in vehicles of extraterrestrial manufacture. With apologies for using a paywalled news search cf.:
- Comment User:E.M.Gregory "The problem is that the page is edited and maintained by editors intent on the anti-reality narrative the UFOs exist and that Good is a leading expert..." — Not true and I take offence at the insinuation. In my case I wrote the article basically on the basis that an author existed and that a minimum of sustained coverage in 2 independent reliable sources existed. I have tried to keep it as objective as I could. Where people here have suggested the article take on another direction I have tried to incorporate that, see the "Criticism" section. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page, as it now stands, largely the work of page creator Lopifalko, is a POV misrepresentation not only of reality, but of the sources he cites, with quotations from sources pulled out of context so that meaning is inverted or elided.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: If you give me an example of what you mean then I can address it. I feel you're assuming nefariousness intent where there is none. Please assume good faith. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" The United States held a top-secret investigation into unidentified flying objects after World War II and found the bodies of four humanoids from a crashed flying saucer, according to Britain's leading UFO expert. The Observer newspaper yesterday quoted UFO researcher Timothy Good as saying that a U.S. government committee, code-named Majestic-12, examined and then covered up news of UFO crashes in the late 1940s.": (UFO Expert Says U.S. Found 4 Dead Humanoids. San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, Calif]01 June 1987: 3.
He is not infinitely credulous, " A CLAIM by an Oldbury stargazer that he had filmed a UFO has been shot to Earth by an expert who reckons the footage is the planet Venus. Roberto Pall... maintained the object, which he first saw in May, was a UFO... He filmed various encounters of what he was convinced was a spacecraft from another world. But best-selling author and UFO expert Timothy Good said after viewing the footage he was convinced it was actually Venus which does shine brightly in the night sky. He added: "To me most of the footage does indeed show Venus. The enlarging and shrinking of the object is due to the video camera being on auto-focus.": (Timothy Good is recognized as one of the world's leading authorities." UFO 'is just Venus' Birmingham Mail; Birmingham (UK) 26 July 2007: 20.)
But he is a believer, and a conspiracy theorist: " Timothy Good of Beckenham, an author of several novels on UFOs, said: "UFOs remain the most sensitive subject in British intelligence. It is wonderful that some of this information is now being made public even though I believe they are withholding even more. 'The sheer number of sightings over London and the fact that none has a rational explanation is both fascinating and exciting to me.'": (Great flying doughnuts! Secret UFO figures are revealed ; Close encounters: the Ministry of Defence still has no explanation for 34 UFO sightings above the capital since 2002. Widdup, Ellen. Evening Standard; London (UK) [London (UK)]14 Feb 2006: 3. ) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Some, er, highlights of Good's beliefs:

The US has been in charge of worldwide alien contact since 1952.
President George Washington kept details of the aliens a secret.
President Eisenhower had meetings with the aliens during his administration.
The US 10th Fleet has had bases on the Moon and Mars for decades.
Good has had three personal contacts with aliens. Telepathically.
Astronaut Gordon Cooper has flown a recovered alien flying saucer.
Henry Kissinger was part of an inner circle working with the aliens since 1946.
NASA's real mission is to distract the public from the truth about aliens.

...and that's just from one book. The titles of his books are literally conspiracy theories (e.g. Earth: An Alien Enterprise: The Shocking Truth Behind the Greatest Cover-Up in Human History), yet we have no RS calling him a conspiracy theorist. That alone should tell you that none of the cited sources takes Good seriously enough to give him anything but WP:SENSATIONAL coverage, and that's a shitty basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough to meet WP:FRINGEBLP. I NOTE that although Good wrote many books, only the first (1987) book was widely reviewed, and those reviews were sensationalist, jocular or mocking in tone. That he was interviewed in the wake of the 1987 book, but after that interviews fall off steeply. And that he advocated both the FRINGE theory that UFO's visit our planet regularly and the FRINGE conspiracy theory that the governments of the U.S. and U.K. have verification of these visits (dead bodies of aliens and similar,) that they conceal. WP:FRINGEBLP is a higher standard than WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR, as it should be. He does not pass it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answering page creator User:Lopifalko's question here instead of above. Lopifalko, what I meant by "POV misrepresentation" is, for example, the statement now on page that "Good has acted as a consultant to several US Congressional investigations into UFOs." Published during his 5 seconds of press attention when the only one of his many books that got press attention came out, it is sourced to an unsigned article on Huff Post: "Eisenhower Met With ETs Says Ex-Government Consultant", which says nothing about a congressional investgation, and to BBC Birmingham, where a vague claim is made "has acted as a consultant to several US Congress investigations into the phenomenon." But, have there actually been U.S. Congressional investigations into UFO? I'm dubious. If there have been such investigations and Good participated in them you will be able to find and bring better documentation than this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I have removed it. Likewise I am happy to remove anything else that is contentious. Personally I feel that "first western UFO researcher to be interviewed on Russian television after the collapse of the Soviet Union" is scraping the barrel, which another editor added. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am less troubled here by material that is "contentious" than I am by misrepresentation. For example, the page as you wrote it states: "According to the BBC, "Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon", has "written numerous best-selling books" on the subject and was the first western UFO researcher to be interviewed on Russian television after the collapse of the Soviet Union." But was this the BBC? It [29] is posted on a BBC local Birmingham site in a section called "people" , and we know that it is not reliable becasue it tells us that Good participated in multiple U. S. Congressional investigations of UFOs. What it looks like is a press release. the tipoff is the ending. "Timothy Good is next appearing in Birmingham in December 2009 to give a lecture for BUFOG - the Birmingham UFO Group. Visit: www.bufog.com for more information. Tim's latest book 'Need to Know: UFOs, The Military, and Intelligence' published Sidgwick and Jackson is available now in all good bookstores." this is a PR release by [[30]]. "The Birmingham UFO Group." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted @E.M.Gregory:, thanks, I hadn't read that far down. I have removed all the quotations cited to that. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are satisfied with skeptoid.com as a WP:RS? If you want your assertion that the page is NPOV, you might want to take a closer look at the reliability of the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about skeptoid.com, someone else added that and also I have ignored it so far where it has been linked to in this discussion, with a plan to investigate another time. I will look at its use in the article later today. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the skeptoid.com source added by user 5Q5. I also removed "Robert Sheaffer has written that Good is "long known for promoting dubious claims" and source that I had added in good faith based on the info given by user 5Q5, in this deletion discussion above: "here (see badufos.blogspot.com/2014/02/) is a 2014 notability description with criticism by skeptic and CSI fellow Robert Sheaffer that you can add to the article in a Criticism section right now with my full encouragement". -Lopifalko (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Currently the only source in the article that is actually critical of Good's claims is a blog post on https://badufos.blogspot.com/. However, although it is by a recognized expert (Robert Sheaffer) it is a self-published source, and WP:BLPSPS forbids using such sources on biographies of living people. Without a reliably published source of this nature, we cannot have a properly neutral article about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, POV is not the only problem with this page. Per WP:BLPFRINGE there would need to be "reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I see how this works now, that the sources humour him. I've started looking for sources that are critical of him but haven't found any yet. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked too, and several editors above note that they have also searched for a WP:RS vetting and factchecking Good's assertions about visitors from other worlds. None of us have found such a source - and I ran some powerful news and scholarly archive searches. And, as you say, we do need such a source per WP:BLPFRINGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would the critical analysis of Good and of his claims in Above Top Secret by Australian Skeptics in its The Skeptic magazine in 1987 and 1989 be suitable? Far, far above, 5Q5 said they weren't online but jps provided links. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it failed the first nomination, and there is only one reference dated 1987 for the leading UFO researcher in Britain; which indicates they probably have a new one every year, and probably isn't awarded by the Royal Society. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article references are the best I could find. He scrapes WP:NAUTHOR with his books being reviewed/cited by New Scientist, New York Times, BBC and Irish Independent (and others); and he is a major figure in his field. The BBC have interviewed him, and said "Timothy Good is considered one of the world's leading experts on the UFO phenomenon". He lacks the major interview in a Tier 1 RS that would give unambigious WP:SIGCOV, however, I do think he scrapes NAUTHOR, and a reader into UFOs would expect to find him in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, Tom DeLonge has had a May 2019 documentary aired on the $36m he has spent on UFO research (see Tom DeLonge#To The Stars), and he is citing Good as his inspiration; it is throwing a lot more citations on Good, including Newsweek, Fox News, and others. Again, adding to his notability in this field. Britishfinance (talk)

Note the BBC reference has been discussed here. It's not actually the BBC. It is written by a local UFO group and hosted on the BBC's Birmingham page. You can tell by the headline "Alien Bases Revealed!". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview by BBC Birmingham, which is still the BBC. As I said, he lacks a Tier 1 RS interview that would make him a solid Keep, but he is clearly identified by good RS as being a notable figure in this field per WP:NAUTHOR. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed WikiData now so that his authority control data comes through. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His 1987 book Above Top Secret is actually cited by a paper that the CIA print in full on their website that supported the theme that the CIA covered up research into UFOs [31]; for a conspiracy theorist like Good, that is notability indeed. Britishfinance (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: That was already linked to. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Agrawal[edit]

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

The subject is the mayor of a small city, which means that they don't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. The provided source is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG, and searching online I found a bunch of articles about other people named Renu Agrawal but nothing significant about the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source that is hard to find. Agrawal is not a politician from a major city, and a search for the name shows several unrelated individuals with the same name. _signed,thrashbandicoot01 ^talk 01:15, 29 May 2019 (EST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I'd classify a city of 365,253 as small. Is there any policy/criteria for this determination? According to the article, Korba is the third largest in the state of Chhattisgarh.Thsmi002 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thsmi002, the most relevant guideline is WP:NPOLITICIAN, which says that only state- and national- level politicians are considered automatically notable (alongside local politicians that have significant coverage and thus meet GNG). Additionally, there's WP:POLOUTCOMES, which states that City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London.. So, while Korba is not a village (although in my personal view any city smaller than 1 million could easily be considered small), it's not exactly Mumbai. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an obvious difference between being mayor of such a large city and being one of the city councillors or municipal officers. Can you point to any case where an article about the mayor of a city of this size in a Western anglophone country has been deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, going through the list of deletion nominations for politicians for the last month, the only mayor fo a similarly sized city that I found was this example from a slightly smaller (pop ~140k) city in Kansas, which was deleted. There is also much stronger evidence that mayors of cities one order of magnitude smaller are routinely deleted. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mayor of a city of less than half the population of Korba, not just a slightly smaller city. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same order of magnitude, which is the closest I could find for articles about mayors up for deletion the past month. At any rate, the relevant guideline is rather clear that only state- and nation- level politicians are a priori presumed to be notable. POLOUTCOMES is a weaker standard which further establishes that municipal leaders of the most well-known cities in the world are generally kept. For everyone else (i.e. this subject)–whether mayors, councillors, or otherwise–the standards of notability are GNG and NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why a logarithmic scale should be preferred to an absolute scale in this case. The question simply seems to be whether we should use the same standard for the mayor of a city inhabited mainly by brown non-anglophone people as we use for the mayor of a city inhabited mainly by white anglophone people. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, I have no intention to hold this article to a different standard due to the nationality of the subject and object to having my position described as such. I disagree with Thsmi002's assessment of the Lincoln, Nebraska article's implications on what is generally considered notable, and therefore fail to see any double standard here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be along the lines of what I was thinking. For example, the redlinks in List of mayors of Lincoln, Nebraska suggests that being the mayor of Lincoln, a city of 258,379 makes the subject wikinotable. It's difficult for me to search sources in this case because I do not speak any Indian languages. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thsmi002, I don't think I agree with your assessment of that list. Barely over a fifth of the listed politicians have an article, and of those that do, several held significantly more notable positions than mayor of Lincoln, including Senators and Nebraska governors. If we ignore such examples, we're down to 3 out of 40 mayors that have an article, hardly evidence that mayors of the city are instantly notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody who can read the necessary language to find the correct type of sourcing can do significantly better than this. It is true that in a North American or European context, a mayor of a city this size would often be kept — but the key word there is "often", which is not the same thing as "always", because even in North American and European cities mayoral notability still hinges on the quality of the sourcing that the article either already shows or can be improved to show. For example, even cities this size do not always have directly elected executive mayors at all — some have purely ceremonial mayors who are selected through an annual "everybody on council gets a turn" rotation among the city councillors, and that type of mayor would not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed as a mayor of a city in the 300K range.
The notability test for mayors does not extend "no sourcing required" freebies just because of the city's population — the notability test for a mayor, regardless of what country the city is in and regardless of how big the city is or isn't, always hinges on the quality of the sources you can show to support the article, and not just on the size of the city per se. So if somebody's willing to locate better sources to properly support Renu Agrawal's notability, then I'd be happy to reconsider this — but the references here right now are both very short blurbs that mention her name in the process of not being about her, and even one of those two is from a WordPress blog rather than a reliable source media outlet. It's not a question of whether the voters are white or brown, either: even a North American mayor of a city this size would still not be handed an automatic notability pass on this depth of sourcing alone, if nothing better could actually be found.
Mayoral notability depends on the quality of the sourcing, not the population of the city or the skin colour of the voters. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are not automatically notable, and I don't see the sourcing to get her over the line. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in the past, we have accepted that mayors of US cities with moren 60,000 population are usually notable, and over 100,000 always. (Some afs have said 60,000 always, and I have usually held out for 100,000--I'm a little restrictive on local topics). But this city is three times that size. I generally am very skeptical towards claims that we should keep on the grounds of purported cultural bias even if there's a failure to meet the usual criteria. But this is a case where the usual criteria are met, so opposition to this seems to be one of the instances where we are in fact showing cultural-based bias. With respect to sourcing, low sourcing in unfamiliar geographic areas with less internet media is the source of most often source of actual cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's really a well-established consensus I would vote to keep, but this is the first I'm hearing of it and it seems like a low bar. I'd be interested in seeing any example AfDs or essays, as I'm wondering how many subjects that meet this standard actually end up with articles that clearly pass GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely do not have any consensus that mayors are always guaranteed articles the moment the city has cleared 100K in population — 100K or not, a mayor's notability always still hinges on the depth and volume and range and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support an article. Mayors of 100K+ cities can still fail to receive the necessary depth of coverage, and are not handed a free exemption from having to have quality sources just because the city's population has surpassed an arbitrary number. It's true that our mayoral notability standards used to be based on an arbitrary population cutoff — but that was deprecated a long time ago, because it left us with far, far too many bad "Person is the mayor of city, the end" stubs about mayors who were unsourceable and unexpandable. The actual standard that a mayor has to clear in 2019 hinges on the number of quality sources that the article can use, not on the number of people that the mayor happens to govern. Bearcat (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than go off on these rants with italicisation that makes your edits resemble spam emails, why not give us some evidence of this change of consensus? The best way, as I said above, would be to point out where an article about the elected mayor of a city of anything approaching this size in a Western anglophone country has ever come anywhere near a deletion decision. Another way would be to compare this elected mayor of a city with more than half the population of Vermont with the 150 members of that state's general assembly and the 30 members of its senate who get automatic notability passes. Notability guidelines are supposed to be interpreted with a bit of common sense, which says that an elected mayor of Korba, verified by sources, is far more notable than a single representative in Vermont. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We just recently deleted a mayor of Liverpool, on the grounds that because of the way the office of mayor works there (ceremonial, and without any real executive power) he wasn't sourceable to much more than cursory verification that he exists. We've deleted many, many articles about mayors of cities above 100K in size in the United States, because they didn't have the depth or range of coverage required to actually pass NPOL #2 on the sources. And on and so forth: AFD discussions about mayors very routinely establish that the notability test for a mayor is his or her depth and range and volume of sourceability, not an arbitrary population number that lets mayors stick around on inadequate sourcing just because the city happens to surpass a certain size. NPOL #2 even explicitly says that the notability test for local politicians, such as mayors, is "who have received significant press coverage".
But the sources we have here are not "significant press coverage" at all. Both of them are short blurbs; one is a very short blurb in a real newspaper, which just quotes her as saying "It is our first duty to protect plants and to plant maximum number of saplings and conserve them", and the other is a very short blurb in an unreliable WordPress blog, which nominally verifies her election victory while not being about her. The notability test for mayors, again, is "significant press coverage" — namely a depth, range and/or volume of sourcing that enables us to write a genuinely substantive and useful article that covers the mayor in some depth. It is not "a mayor is always guaranteed an article the moment any source at all can be found to verify that she exists, even if it's just a short blurb on a blog that just verifies her vote total on election day".
So rather than criticizing other editors just because you don't like their writing style, how about you actually make an effort to find some of the better, more detailed, more substantive sources that would actually make a difference? Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that the mayor of Liverpool who was deleted held that post before 2012, when that was an unelected ceremonial position, so not comparable to the directly elected mayor of Korba. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or draftify Renu Agwal could possibly meet notability standards, but the article in its current state doesn't prove that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space Subject may be notable however the stub and the lack of easily searchable english language sources make this difficult. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple articles that mention the subject in the Rajasthan Patrika. However, as Lubbad85 writes above, "the lack of easily searchable english language sources" makes it difficult to find reliable coverage of the subject. As I wrote in WP:Articles for deletion/Denis Law (politician) "an article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence would need adequate sources (in total) that provides a framework to create an article to sufficiently describe the subject and/or their agenda/actions as mayor. Those sources may be purely local, but national sources help." --Enos733 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Star of Christmas[edit]

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

This excessively long retelling of an animated series episode has been redirected by four different editors for lack of sourcing and demonstrated notability, yet keeps being reinstated by the same person without any improvements. I'd like to arrive at some assessment that sticks for once. My take is that this should be redirected to List of VeggieTales videos. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This lacks notability and should not exist as an article but can be appropriately covered in the list cited by Elmidae. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No indication of notability other than as part of the series and poor sourcing means brief coverage as part of the list is appropriate. An additional attempt to discuss the issue with Ethancartoons/71.38.26.91 on their talk pages or the article's talk page would be nice, but here we are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV series' Christmas episodes are a specific television sub-genre with many such episodes receiving detailed write-ups (List of United States Christmas television episodes). This full-length article is certainly useful to those researching Christmas on TV and, with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS of many other detailed Christmas episodes, there is no need to single out this episode for redirect and drastic reduction. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem identified with this article is that there is simply very little (if any) coverage in independent reliable sources -- clearly insufficient to write a reasonably detailed article. Yes, we can write detailed article about every episode of every TV show ever made based entirely on the primary source that might be useful in some way to someone at some point in the future. Similarly, we could have an article giving the coordinates and species of every tree in New York City or prices paid for various CDs on Ebay. But we don't. (As for anyone using this article for "research", I await the scholarly monograph discussing the work of such noted thespians as Unnamed England Boy, Ma Carrot, England Woman with Tan Colored Dress, and others who appear in this work as themselves, along with the noted performances by Bob the Tomato, Larry the Cucumber and Pa Grape. Percy Pea was clearly cheated from an Emmy nomination for Best Legume in a Supporting Role in a Musical or Comedy.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual episodes of TV series do indeed receive sparse coverage in independent reliable sources, nevertheless, various series, such as The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Star Trek and a number of others have detailed episode articles for every single installment. It all depends upon the willingness of individual editors to perform the designated task.

A few years ago, individual films were being submitted for deletion on the basis of not being sufficiently notable. Now, virtually all films are considered sufficiently notable to have an entry in Wikipedia. On the same basis, at some point in the future, since Wikipedia has unlimited space, we may indeed have a "detailed article about every episode of every TV show ever made".

As for comparisons with creation of lists focusing on other frames of reference, such as tree coordinates or "prices paid for various CDs on Ebay", it all depends on consensus. Since consensus already exists regarding films and TV series, tweaking detail of coverage emerges from discussions such as this.

Each feature film and each episode of TV series brings its own viewpoint and many or most of those, especially children's series, may be vulnerable to the reductio ad absurdum put forth by those who would "await the scholarly monograph discussing the work of such noted thespians as Unnamed England Boy..." In this case, however, I invite those interested to glance at VeggieTales#Reception and awards to see that this series is considered as one of the most original of its kind. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through the wall of text above but have read the first sentence to which I respond that WP:NEPISODE details how an individual episode can establish notability. For some shows there is enough critical analysis of each episode that it's true each of these episodes is notable. For most TV, even successful TV, each episode is not notable only some larger chunk of the show is notable. That's why in this case the redirect is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to read this brief response to the end after noticing that the redlink WP:NEPISODE has failed to provide any guidance. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Spinner sorry about that. Let's try WP:EPISODE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I appreciate the prompt creation of the redirect which does indeed link to valuable guidance. However, such general guidelines may not take into account the specifics of each circumstance. Ultimately, consensus will decide the fate of individual entries such as this one. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--notable coverage: link 1, link 2, link 3, and link 4.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above such as DVD Talk and Jesus Freak Hideout which is a reliable source for christian music in WikiProject Music, passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 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 keep. Tone 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elroy Kahanek[edit]

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

I'm unhappy to send something straight from AfC to AfD, but by my reading, notability for this subject is based on a single obituary and two passing mentions. I'm not feeling especially hawkish on this one because the article can hardly be called promotional and Kahanek has passed away, but I'm pretty sure this does not fulfill our WP:NBIO criteria. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually conflicted with the nom, but delete basically and I'm shocked at the utter lack of coverage in books or papers (I searched several archives) for someone who is a supposed writer of several notable songs. However, being a promoter of notable people isn't notable itself either, it's just a job. I'm also curious as to why the creator and AFC reviewer who thought the fact that he was robbed once in his life was at all relevant to an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. Wikipedia is explicitly not the place where one finds everything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets criteria 3 and 4 of WP:NCREATIVE. "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention". Kahanek cowrote several notable songs that we have articles on in addition to his music promotion work with several major and influential record labels. We have obituaries and news coverage of hime over many years. Not all of the Billboard articles for example go into great detail but he is noted in many articles over many years. Not all of these articles are easily available online unfortunately and I can only see snippets for many. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient notability asserted per WP:NMUSIC as writer of several notable songs and several notable positions at various labels. I will dig through americanradiohistory.com and the Tennesseean to see if I can find more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Vallini[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. Although he was selected for Italy in the 2017 and 2018 IIHF World Championship, per his Eliteprospects page he never actually played a game in those tournaments, and per criteria #6, playing the World Championship is what counts. Tay87 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I double-checked Tay87's findings and agree that the databases show that while he was on the roster, he never appeared in a highest level senior world championship game. I don't believe that just being the third goalie on the roster meets WP:NHOCKEY since he didn't actually play in a game. My own search didn't find the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harihara Mahapatra[edit]

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

Sourcing does not meet WP:GNG, most of the article's sources are IMDb and those that aren't don't appear to be much better (or have trivial coverage). Searching online led me to articles about other people named Harihara Mahapatra. It's not clear that the acting roles are notable enough to meet WP:NACTOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 15 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) 07:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He won best comedic actor twice in a niche market of less than 38 million people (Odia speakers); I think there is probably more coverage on him, but mostly likely in what I assume is his native tongue. Orville1974 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strip out the IMDB refs and there seems to be enough material for a notable (as an award winner) stub article.Bogger (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Staats[edit]

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

Advertorialized BLP of a musician with only iffy claims to passing WP:NMUSIC, and reference bombed to garbage sources rather than genuinely reliable ones. iTunes is a single-vendor WP:BADCHART, not a record chart that confers notability under NMUSIC #2, so topping that chart counts for nothing whatsoever toward making a musician notable -- so the only notability claim he really has is a technical pass of #9 for winning The Launch, but that show is not so "inherently" notable as to grant him a free exemption from actually having to have legitimate or reliable references.
Of the 50 footnotes here, however, fully 35 of them are primary sources (his own self-published content about himself on social networking platforms and iTunes itself, etc.) that are not valid support for notability at all; another nine are unreliable source blogs; and four are just here to tangentially verify the existence of the Mohawk Nation, the Six Nations of the Grand River and the geographic appelation "Turtle Island", while completely failing to actually mention Logan Staats's name at all in conjunction with any of them. Just two footnotes actually represent coverage about Logan Staats in a fully reliable and independent source — but the kicker is that both of those two acceptable footnotes are the same source, unnecessarily repeated as two separate footnotes instead of using the named callback format. So there's really only one genuinely notability-supporting source present here at all, and one notability-supporting source is not enough.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly — but the sourcing here at present is utterly for shit, and his notability claim is swaddled in too much advertorialism to overlook that. Best case scenario, this is a candidate for the blow it up and start over treatment — worst case, it's too soon for a person who might still be months or years away from having anywhere near enough of the correct quality of sourcing to support a Wikipedia article at all. As always, the rule is not that as long as the article asserts a notability claim, the sources can be just any garbage you can find — the quality of the sources you can show is the notability test he has to pass, regardless of what achievements the article claims. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A quick Google search shows that he has an entry on AllMusic, but no reviews or bio. Three Indigenous Music Awards Album & Producer in 2017, and a single in 2019. Five interviews or brief discussions, including CBC: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. I don't see much else though, so it may be TOOSOON. WP:BADCHARTS is clear that iTunes is not a chart. Why isn't there a board for indigenous, native, or aboriginal subjects? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Beats, Hamilton Rising and Two Row Times are not reliable sources, CFWE is a single local radio station for which the link leads to a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and as you correctly note the matter of whether AllMusic supports notability or not depends on actual critic-written prose bio/review content, and not just the albums' presence in the database as directory entries — and the CBC source you offered was already addressed in my nomination statement, because it's the one acceptable footnote that's already in the article. So no, none of those sources are adding anything new here. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bearcat and Walter Görlitz, thank you for your efforts here. I have been working with the editor who moved the article to the mainspace. I will encourage the editor to add some additional external sources, and also ensure that they appear in greater detail in the works cited. I will also direct the editor to the other concerns expressed, which should also be dealt with, where possible. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes those three not RS? https://canadianbeats.ca/about/ and https://canadianbeats.ca/authors/ seem to be legitimate and nothing about it at RSN. I don't see an about or staff page at Hamilton Rising, but there is at https://tworowtimes.com/about/. It's the equivalent of local coverage. This is why I !voted weak keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATD article needs an ambitious editor to replace some poor references - the core question is whether the subject is GNG...and the answer is yes. Lubbad85 (☎) 23:16, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shobiz Newsy News[edit]

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

Non-notable show. No sources, no coverage found. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:34, 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.

[1] ttps://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/23/architecture-design-podcasts/#disqus_thread

[1]