The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Most of the citations here are from the org, itself. Two citations about who the group invited to speak says nothing about the club. You can find local routine news coverage announcing club events but nothing in depth about the club. While this article tries to assert that people around this club are notable, there's no claim that the club is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to substantiate that this club has any notability whatsoever. NCORP fail. Netherzone (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. - Whpq (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (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.
WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG.
Existing citations focus narrowly on the 1921 game, while the nominal article topic is unsourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, fails GNG policy. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another example of SEC fans' liberal use of the word rivalry.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Plenty of significant coverage of this as a rivalry. It also has many of the classic characteristics of a historically notable series, including (a) lengthy history - 125 years dating back to 1896, (b) frequency of play - 92 total matches, (c) geographic proximity - 200 miles between the campuses, (d) border states, (e) closely competitive - record evenly split at 46–42–4; and (f) fan base animosity. Examples of coverage: (1)this from 1968 ("Vandy-Kentucky Rivalry On"); (2)this from 1959 (reviewing history and noting, "The Vanderbilt-Kentucky rivalry ... couldn't be closer, point-wise."); (3)this from 1963 ("The Kentucky-Vanderbilt rivalry is marked by upsets and the unexpected ..."); (4)this from 1973 ("The truth ... is the ferocity of the Kentucky-Vanderbilt college football rivalry, an ancient celebration of ill feeling ..."); (5)this from 1950 ("Vanderbilt, Kentucky Resume Football Rivalry In 1953"); (6)this from 1950 ("It's a natural rivalry, an annual stadium-filler here and at Lexington."); (7)this from 1949 ("Kentucky and Vanderbilt, football rivals since 1896"); (8)this from 1939 ("Kentucky Downs Vanderbilt Rival"); (9)this from 1998 ("Kentucky dumps rival Vanderbilt"). Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough of the above sources actually mention a "rivalry", along with the other points mentioned by Cbl62, to make the reference and article. Unlike the the article on the "South Carolina–Texas A&M football rivalry", that has bare mention. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG.
Taggeed with NOT since Dec 2017. The nominal article topic is unsourced, with existing citations only tied to game results and conference alignment changes. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's not a single reference in the article which discusses this as a rivalry at all. A search brings up mostly links back to Wikipedia, and the best source I can find says this is a rivalry because it's on Wikipedia, which, ahem. SportingFlyerT·C 22:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could have been bundled with the other, no? --Micky (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- this source[1] identifies it as ECU's biggest conference rivalry. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 June 2020 (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.
My main concern here is whether these sources can be considered generally reliable. The Eurogamer one is user-generated, so I think that's out. The other ones all don't look very reliable to me, but maybe I'm biased against colourful things and some of those magazines do have a repuation for fact-checking. PJvanMill (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer article was written by Spanner Spencer, now a staff at Pocket Gamer, which is considered reliable at WP:VG/RS, so I have no reliability issues there. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're biased against colorful things. These are five computer magazines from 1990-1991 reviewing the game, which clearly demonstrates that the game was considered notable at the time. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a reservation I had, not a complete rejection. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Jovanmilic97. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are good and could better serve this article by being added into it. As proper citations, not further reading. --Micky (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Both games have reliable sources giving them significant coverage. DreamFocus 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom, this is sufficient for the GNG after all. PJvanMill (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject fails WP:GNG. The cited sources are a link to a scan of the book itself (twice) and a link to The Smithsonian book of books, which only says that only the Smithsonian has a complete copy which makes the subject rare, not necessarily notable. When I searched for other sources I found this mere mention and this footnote commenting on the aforementioned Smithsonian book of books so it's not even telling us more than we already know. We could redirect to Harper & Brothers but I think redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this demonstrates notability. I'm going to add these to the article in a Further reading section, so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: Please see WP:SIGCOV. There's little point in adding a list of sources to the "further reading." If you can't be bothered to improve the article then I posit it's not worth saving. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd thing to say. These are contemporary sources that talk about the American School Library for pages and pages, which is clearly significant coverage. Whether I personally can "be bothered to improve the article" in the last fifteen minutes doesn't reflect on the subject's notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, I decided that I could be bothered, and I've essentially rewritten the article. The entire history of the Society and its ill-fated Library is covered in detail in The American Journal of Education vol 15 (1865), and it turns out it's a pretty interesting story. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the sources above need to be added into the article but remember WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the sources do constitute significant coverage. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources that have recently been added, especially by User:Toughpigs, notability seems clear. --Macrakis (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2020 (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.
Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. He has held low-level political offices that don't meet NPOL. He's also a candidate for offices that would make him notable, but only if he wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and the article as written fails WP:PROMO as it lists his campaign policy positions. SportingFlyerT·C 22:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it fails WP:PROMO and should therefore be cleaned up, but it may not fail WP:NPOL for long. --Micky (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can always restore it if he wins. It's also been written by a number of redlinked editors with similar random usernames who haven't worked on any other articles, so has likely been paid for. SportingFlyerT·C 01:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article fails fails WP:NPOL. His position locally is not inherently notable and there are no unusual happenings (super long tenure, extraordinary event) that would create notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — WP:NPOL requires holding a notable office, not just running for one — but being mayor of a small town in the 33K population range is not "inherently" notable either, so that doesn't get him over the "preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy" test, and the depth of media coverage shown here is nowhere near enough to get him over the "his candidacy is more special than everybody else's candidacies" test either. But we also don't keep articles about candidates in draftspace pending the election results, either, because that just turns draftspace into the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that our rules were intentionally designed to prevent mainspace from becoming. If he wins in November, administrators have the ability to undelete the article at that time with one punch on one button, so "don't lose the work because he might win" is not a compelling reason to waive our rules. Bearcat (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject was mayor of San Juan Capistrano, California, and could conceivably pass WP:NPOL if there is sufficient and national or international coverage of the subject outside of the subject's 2018 and 2020 campaigns. I agree that the article can be recreated in November if they win, but merely being a candidate on a ballot for a national office or being a mayor of a small town is not sufficient to pass our notability standards. In any event, I do not believe the "political positions" section is appropriate for Wikipedia, as our project is not a repository of campaign brochures. --Enos733 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and reads like campaign literature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely fails WP:PROMO and strongly agree fails WP:NPOL where "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". LandonRules(Talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (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.
WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG.
The nominal article topic is unsourced, with only a single pseudo citation present which supports that games were played. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these rivalries as I'm working through the AfDs are notable. --Micky (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2020 (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 is that added sources point towards notability. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an impressive looking article, but I'm not seeing independent coverage, sorry. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added two more independent sources. I'm in no sense a fan of gospel music, but from reading the article and googling, this is someone who has had a significant presence in the Ghanaian music industry, with a notable career and a history of chairing industry bodies. We shouldn't expect a Ghanaian musician to have the same kind of reporting that US musicians have, and gospel music is significant in modern Ghanaian culture. --Slashme (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Diana Hopeson is a notable Ghanaian musician. I agree that the article has issues with references and the community should be given time to clean it up, but I don't think it should be deleted. -Masssly (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:ANYBIO#Criteria1, won national industry award, chaired national organizations. Ijon (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as winner of a National Honors Award, I've not the least doubt about her notability.DarwinAhoy! 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If not all, most of the issues raised concerning this article have been fixed and hence does not deserve to be deleted Celestinesucess (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember WP:DINC. It has been cleaned up and likely never needed an AfD to do so. --Micky (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is clearly notable since she has headed the musician union of Ghana and has received national awards. I believe the article needs more work to clean it and not necessarily delete it.Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not appear to me to be problematic, and she appears to be relevant in Ghanian music culture. The several pages cited appear to reflect this. With that said, the article, I do not believe, is a stub, despite it being designated as such, and should acquire a discography section. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that this content should be in Wikipedia somewhere (whether kept or merged), and the majority of support is for keeping, with possible merge targets split between two articles (often a sign that the subject has multiple potential bases of notability). BD2412T 03:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequately referenced article about a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office at the local level and founder of a local organization. As always, neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies -- a mayoral candidate has to win the election, not just run in it, to secure notability from a mayoral election per se, and founders of local organizations need to show a lot more coverage than just technical verification that they exist before they're nationally notable for that. But three of the four sources here are just routine campaign coverage in small weekly hyperlocals in her own local media market, which is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG just for being a non-winning candidate for municipal office in and of itself, and the fourth is the "about us" profile on the directly affiliated organization's own self-published website about itself, which is a primary source that does not count as support for notability at all. Literally nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more, in number and depth and geographic range, reliable source coverage in major media than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some more to her page and that's just scratching the surface plenty of stuff available on Google which makes her notable. Unfortunately I've run out of time. User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep or merge into Don't Shoot Portland. She's notable as an activist, not as a political candidate. A quick Google search shows that the organization is notable: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. pburka (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of news coverage featuring her, that should make it practical to expand the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge her activism into Don't Shoot Portland, which needs to be expanded and where most of her activism has taken place. She's not a notable candidate, this is mostly written to be an article about a candidate, and most of the coverage I can find of her is local coverage about her being a candidate. Based on my search, her activism is almost all in the context of Don't Shoot Portland, as evidenced by the sources provided above, so I think a merge and redirect is best per WP:NOTINHERITED. If I've missed sources on her activism I'm happy to reconsider. SportingFlyerT·C 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definately notable, meets wp.gng as there is enough coverage. It does not matter if she is a failed political candidate or an activist. Don't Shoot would not exist if she had not founded it, and the political career is linked with her activism. Just looks like anti blm to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter, as we only keep failed candidates unless they're otherwise notable or if their campaign was especially noteworthy. She could be otherwise notable, but the coverage I found directly relates to the organisation she founded, that's why I suggested a merge instead of an outright delete. SportingFlyerT·C 17:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Failed candidates may not be normally accepted, but these are the addition to her being an activist and give back story to someone who active. Don't shoot portland is not mentioned without comments from Railford, there is no evidence on their page or the net there anything more than a one person organisation. Also the criminal conviction that was quashed and subsequent failed claim case show notability. Merger would mean we would lose this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.239.150 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually say your argument that she's closely tied to Don't Shoot Portland is actually a strong merge argument. SportingFlyerT·C 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJust to say that I should have mention WP:Basic in my Keep vote.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong or properly referenced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claims in evidence here involve numbers of streams on internet platforms like Spotify or Instagram, which are no part of our notability criteria for musicians whatsoever -- and the entire article is completely unreferenced to even one shred of coverage in real media. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are entitled to have promotionally toned articles just because they exist -- a musician has to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and reliable source coverage in real media to support it, for an article on here to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems self-promotional not encyclopedic. --Micky (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is true that the article seems promotional and would need a major rewrite, but I don't like Bearcat's distinction between "streaming" and "real media". For musicians of this performer's generation and appealing principally to his generation, streaming *is* the best way to measure their popularity, and "real media" as defined above has no impact or meaning to that generation at all. By enforcing what to the young is a meaningless distinction, you're encouraging a bias against new artists and a bias in favour of a particular style of rock which is hypocritical, because the same criteria well within my memory would have elevated only classical and excluded rock entirely. Granted this artist is not (yet) a major name even to his own generation, but when an unquestionably notable and successful artist such as Tion Wayne can be nominated for deletion, something is very wrong. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability standards always require third party coverage in reliable sourcesindependent of the artist's own self-promotional materials. That is, people do not get into Wikipedia on the basis of what they claim about themselves on platforms (such as social networking or streaming platforms) where they were able to place and write about themselves — people get into Wikipedia on the basis of having received outside attention from music journalists, which independently verifies that they have passed one or more of the criteria listed in WP:NMUSIC. Neither artists of Mitchell's generation nor artists of colour have any inherent age or racially based problems getting covered by the media: Lizzo has media coverage, Lil Nas X has media coverage, Johnny Orlando has media coverage, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I might add that it is disproportionately black artists who do best on streaming, which adds a whole other set of dangerous implications to Bearcat's argument. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I believe artists of his generation are still covered in "real" media. Without coverage in RS, fails NMUSIC. MB 02:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (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 under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and WP:G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). — Newslingertalk 23:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable organization falling short of WP:ORG. A WP:BEFORE search shows the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Even the sources present in the article barely discusses the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one "keep" does not address the sourcing / notability issue. Sandstein 07:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general elections. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails WP:N. Angryskies (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of importance and notability in article. Sources indicate proof of existence rather than support of notability. doktorbwordsdeeds 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and insufficient notability in sources. --Micky (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since previous nomination was withdrawn. Deletion will mean that anyone reading about the elections in which it stood will be able to find out from Wikipedia about the major parties, which they probably know anyway, but nothing about the small ones. Read an article; be none the wiser! The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide knowledge, especially when that is not available anywhere else. Emeraude (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Free Scotland Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party
Weak delete. There was clearly some local coverage of the party from the sources used in the page. Unfortunately, these are no longer easily visible to assess the significance of; though based on the material in the article these sources support it seems unlikely that they represent in-depth coverage of the party. There is also some book coverage, but this appears to amount to: the party represented a more extreme form of nationalism than the SNP, it was founded by Nugent, it opposed membership of the European Union. I don't think that adds up to significant coverage as required by the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2020 (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.
Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails WP:N. Angryskies (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not prove notability, either prior to, during, or after elections, and many of the sources merely prove the party exists rather than supplies evidence of importance. doktorbwordsdeeds 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The amount of non-notable political party articles needing deletion is excessive... --Micky (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 8 sources in the article, each independent, reliable, secondary, and containing significant coverage, except for two. This clearly passes WP:GNGZoozaz1 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD: with eight independent reliable sources providing significant coverage this clearly meets WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a previous AFD in respect of this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)) where the result was Keep and there have been no changes since this time. I therefore do not believe that we should go against the previous consensus. Also, and just my view (and probably not relevant), political parties (including minor parties) are exactly the kind of information that should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia.Tracland (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree absolutely. Emeraude (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG. I'm a little hesitant that there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage outside the 2003-4 period (there's a trivial mention here) which shows a lack of WP:PERSISTENCE that I think casts doubt on the suitability of the subject for an encyclopedia article. I would feel more comfortable supporting keeping this article if there was independent RS significant coverage from, say, any time after 2010. Ralbegen (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's covered by WP:NOTTEMPORARY which says 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage'. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Fishing Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party
Comment A quick note. Just having links to the BBC and Electoral Commission does not mean they are notable or important. It means that they exist. Keep votes have to justify why an article has to exist without proof of notability. doktorbwordsdeeds 13:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Doktorbuk:, smaller political parties are treated consistently to the standard of relevant notability guidelines: the GNG and ORG. This party has a number of reliable national news sources writing articles that are just about it. That meets the GNG presumption of notability. Small political parties which don't receive comparable coverage fall short, which is presumably why the Scottish Family Party was deleted. The article has sufficient significant coverage in independent RSes that are already used as references in the article to meet a basic notability threshold. Ralbegen (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage. Never been reviewed since 2007, when it was redirected. Large copyvio removed. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and provide redirect to Universal House of Justice. The same was done for many other members of this institution. Membership alone does not confer notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mention and some of those sources fail WP:RS. Topic doesn’t comply with GNG, ANYBIO/WP:NACTOR and lacks CCS. Author also tried to create same article on bnwiki 3 times and certainly has WP:COI. ~ NahidTalk 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even read the sources, but agreed the topic doesn't meet GNG. --Micky (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unreadable situation on the wrong language wiki. — Smuckola(talk) 05:48, 24 June 2020 (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.
WP:NACTOR calls for significant roles in multiple notable productions, which we do not have.
WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article currently cites only IMDb. Otherwise, I find the usual collection of Facebook, wikis, fan sites, databases and nothing else.
As it seems her work was entirely restricted to 1979-1983 as a child, I can't really call it WP:TOOSOON either. SummerPhDv2.0 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No available WP:RS in searches or on the page. --Micky (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not automatically notable just because they've had acting roles — having acting roles is literally the job description for an actor, so if just saying that they'd had an acting role was all it took to make an actor notable then no actor would ever fall below the notability bar at all. Rather, making an actor notable enough for Wikipedia is a question of showing external evidence of their significance as an actor, such as notable acting awards and/or sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their performances to get them over WP:GNG. But there's literally none of any of that here. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I began to feel that "multiple" "Signiciant" roles in "notable" productions has been interpreted in a way that does not indicate actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to set things up so there is a way to flag articles sourced only to IMDb for deletion and the only way to stop a deletion per the flag is to add another source. This huge number of articles sourced to IMDb is a traesty, that so many of them have existed for well over a deacade is another travesty, and that they all get forced to AfD because people object to speedy deletions is an even bigger travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article only dates back to 2013 so it is not as bad as some of the articles we have seen, but it is still an aunacceptably long time for an article on a living person to exist with no reliable sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the above, the creator of the article was indefinitely banned for source falsification. buidhe 09:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable actor ~ Amkgp💬 15:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guayana Esequiba is a disputed territory which exists only on paper. All the cases here are already covered by the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; this article just copied and pasted sections of that article. Sladnick (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The territory is disputed, but is neither de facto or de jure independent. It has no form of autonomy whatsoever. There is no independent coverage of the COVID-19 cases. The total number of infected person in the region is not known, because Guyana does not provide an up to date administration of regions. All we have is an outdated report and a link to a dashboard which is not online anymore, and will probably never return. KittenKlub (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly POV pushing by creating an article to represent an area someone wants to have status instead of dealing with actual status on the ground.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has its encyclopedic reference. Guayana Esequiba is an area in demand by both Guyana and Venezuela. Although the cases are given by the government of Guyana (link1), the area in question is attached to the report maps the daily notifications of COVID-19 from Venezuela (link 2).--MusicologoVzla (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MusicologoVzla (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
CommentThere is no indication that the Venezuelan count includes information about the region. In fact there is no count when you hoover over the disputed area unlike all the other areas.KittenKlub (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuscologoVzla's references. --Micky (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no real reason for this article to exist separately from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article; for all intents and purposes, the region is a part of Guyana regardless of Venezuelan claims and the status of the article should reflect that. There is useful information here, and that should be incorporated into the Guyana article. There are no actual references on the pandemic in Guayana Esequiba, all of the references are simply concerning the pandemic in Guyana with this region as a part of Guyana, and therefore should be merged into that article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary I still think that the article should be left separately from Guyana Esequiba, it is more in each of the articles on coronaviruses from both Guyana and Venezuela, mention is made of this area in claim. It must be remembered that this territory, until it is discussed in the International Court of Justice, does not belong to one or the other, even if Guyana "administers" it. Incidentally, that discussion was to take place in March 2020, but due to the pandemic, it was suspended until further notice. (link).--MusicologoVzla (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a worthless POVFORK of COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana. This region is a part of Guyana, and there is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to seperate it from the rest of the country other than to promote a Venezuelan ultranationalist fantasy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary The region is the most administered Guyana, however, it does not belong to any country until its territorial dispute is resolved. In fact, the maps of Venezuela include it. Don't confuse things.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary That is why there are articles about the territorial dispute. But this is a topic dealing exclusively with the actual administration of the region today. Sladnick (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hate to break it to ya, but New York actually exists. Guayana Esequiba, as a separate entity from Guayana, does not. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary You are wrong, Guayana Esequiba exists in the administration of Venezuela (link and official map photo), that this zone is divided by zones and regions by Guyana is something else. Remember that said territory in claim, is still in dispute until a decision by the International Court is evaluated.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guyana does not exist in the administration of Venezuela. It exists on some maps, but Venezuela most certainly does not administer it. Furthermore, the ICJ doesn't really concern us; what concerns is that while Venezuela may claim it, in reality Guyana fully controls the territory. -Zoozaz1 (talk)03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to the Guyana article, I don't care). It makes sense to have articles for the pandemic as it affects functioning subdivisions of countries that have their own statistics and pandemic responses (COVID-19 pandemic in California, COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei), and to have articles for unrecognized entities that are actually in control of territory (like COVID-19 pandemic in the Donetsk People's Republic). Guayana Essequiba isn't like any of these. Regardless of the legal merits of Venezuela's claim, Venezuela does not control this territory, and the borders of "Guayana Essequiba" have no direct relevance to the people living in Guyana or to their response to the pandemic. Ucucha (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep other articles on the pandemic exist that handle regions, cities or states of other countries. Additionally this region is subject to an International Court of Justice hearing that is was affected by the pandemic. We are not to decide which country this region belongs to.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Guyana article, per Zoozaz1 and Ucucha above. As far as I can see, both countries administer pandemic affairs centrally, and not by state or region. The ICJ might well rule on the matter at some point, and Guyana might well hand control of the region to Venezuela, and the central government of Venezuela might well cede control over pandemic affairs to its constituent states, but until all of that happens, we only split country articles on COVID-19 to state or territory articles based on actual governance. We have more than enough material for a separate article on London, but unlike cities such as New York, London doesn't independently maintain statistics or conduct its own health care policy, so the same principle would apply there. Capewearer (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Territory is disputed, thus creating a stand alone article over coronavirus in this territory sounds violation of NPOV and POVFORK. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to understand why are some many people encouraging its deletion, if the page was about the Guyanan state Barima-Waini it would not be a problem? But because it is about a conflicting territory we should delete it? We have several pages of islands, cities and sub-neighbours, but a well-known disputed territory is no-go? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Western Sahara is administered by two separate entities (Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic); that article discusses both zones. Sevastopol is administered by Russia, even though it is claimed by Ukraine, and the pandemic article discusses the Russian administration there; there is no separate article for "COVID-19 pandemic in Ukrainian Sevastopol" since Ukraine does not control it – for just such a reason people are saying we do not need an article for Covid-19 in Guayana Esequiba because Venezuela does not control it. Sladnick (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point, for example Sevastopol is de facto and de jure Russian, administered by Russia and it is included in Russian epidemic reports. Ukraine claims it. What's the difference with Guayana Esequiba, Guyana and Venezuela?--ReyHahn (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Guayana Esequiba is not included in Guyanan epidemic reports as a region. Seperate regions within this area of land are included, but because there is no health administration or for that matter administration at all that covers just the area of Guayana Esequiba there is no need for an article about it. There is, on the other hand, an active health administation in Sevastopol regardless of Ukrainian or Russian claims. The fundamental difference is that Guayana Esequiba, for all intents and purposes, is simply a line on a map; Sevastapol is a city with an extensive administrative apparatus. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for going on, but I am really trying to get that last part. Just because Guyana calls the region differently and controls it does not mean that the region is not disputed. The region may be subdivided in different administrations, but not because of that we are going to say it is irrelevant. If tomorrow Sevastopol is broken into six it does not make the article less relevant. I guess we can discuss how much coverage or health activity is the region having but arguing it is an "only on paper" territory is just evasive.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The illogical thing is that some are against this article, but in favor of articles of the pandemic in New York. So?.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no COVID-19 articles for historic administrative divisions that no longer exist. Guayana Esequiba is an administrative division which never existed. Sladnick (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we continue that Guayana Esequiba does not exist? So we Venezuelans will all be wrong and what they taught us in geography classes for years is wrong, according to your perspective. A little more consistency. Guayana Esequiba is part of the Venezuelan territory, in all the national maps and part of the country's history. That Guyana has divided part of that territory into its regions does not mean that it is really theirs. So the dispute. I invite you to before you comment on something you do not know, analyze, study and see further. Some links, but they are in Spanish: Link 1link 2.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A COVID-19 article is first about administration. Barima-Waini has no seperate administration or health care, so no that one will not qualify either. New York does. (And London does not as mentioned above) And yes, Saba, St.Barth and the Falklands (disputed as well) have the population of a small village and have their own articles, because they are solely reponsible for the healthcare, registration, administration and management of the pandemic, and the country to which they belong only helps out. Autonomy is a second reason, and once again Esequiba has no autonomy whatsoever. Don't think that I have no sympathy, because the village of Kasuela is also disputed with Guyana, however an Amerindian village with 80 people and no connection to the World Wide Web will never qualify for its own article.KittenKlub (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's see dear Wikipedists, we are falling into a dilemma. The area is historically called Guayana Esequiba and has belonged to Venezuela. That now Guyana has wanted to arbitrarily rename it despite the fact that the matter has not been resolved in the International Court, does not mean that there is no jurisdiction in Venezuela. Don't confuse things. For now it is not from Venezuela, nor is it from Guyana. Therefore I go back and repeat it, the article is relevant because both countries are showing COVID-19 cases for that region.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree; there is no dilemma. Venezuela has no jurisdiction in this region whatsoever; this is just some territory in Guyana that Venezuela claims. If the territory had its own health department and was administrated as a sub-national entity, then fine, there should be an article. All this land is, however, and the only thing the sources that you provide show, is simply some Venezuelan-drawn lines on a map. (as a side note, as the map on this page clearly shows, Venezuela doesn't actually report cases for Guayana Esequiba.) Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invite you to study the issue of Guayana Esequiba, which goes beyond "drawn lines" as you say. Historically it is Venezuelan territory and it is a process that has been in dispute for years and a final agreement has not been reached on that territory invaded by the United Kingdom at the time and then Guyana when said republic was created. In fact, the National Assembly of Venezuela was going to place jurisdiction there and they are in such procedures.--MusicologoVzla (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a little-noted intersection of two separate issues, the territorial dispute and the ongoing pandemic. The only reliably sourced interaction is that the pandemic has disrupted effort to address the dispute. The pandemic has disrupted nearly everything else in the world. At the moment, that's a transient glitch that barely rates a mention an Wikipedia's coverage about the territorial dispute. Reliable sources do not support carving out the COVID-19 response in Guayana Esequiba from the COVID-19 pandemic in Guyana article. Venezuela's claim on the territory does not show a real world effect on the COVID-19 response to justify a stand-alone article or even a section in an existing article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2020 (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.
Band were found non-notable. This band member doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual either. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His album was reviewed by Vibe and RapReviews, both RS for albums. No idea if his Billboard Rap and R&B chart numbers help notability. Caro7200 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is independently notable from the band as his solo album Tha Absolute Truth charted on two national Billboard charts and he also has two releases on Universal Music. Also he has devoted coverage mentioned above as well as Dallas Morning Star and AllMusic already referenced in the article, so passes WP:NMUSIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the two keeps put the billboard and refs for charting it would be a keep, but this is still missing. User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep seems to meet GNG as an individual, and I hear Davidstewartharvey's argument but WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The only source is directly from the organization he was head of. This is not the level of being a public servant that normally results in default notability and we lack the secondary source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The role is not an "inherently" notable one for the purposes of securing guaranteed inclusion rights in Wikipedia — and while two additional footnotes have been added to the article since Johnpacklambert's comment above, that's not enough: GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who can show that their name has appeared in newspapers twice", but evaluates additional factors such as the geographic range of how widely the person is getting covered, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, and the context of what any given source is covering him for, and neither of the new sources pass all of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the sources available, they are not providing adequate indication of notability. --Micky (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Commission's website lays out the appointment process. I am confident even if we were to write a full and complete biography, we would not be able to establish notability from his role the commission.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is virtually no mythology in "Stargate". In the Stargate universe all described in the article if not mythology, but "for real". All usable content can be safely moved into numerous "main" articles. In any case this is one huge WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP . Withdrawn. Sorry, I was not familiar with the meaning Mythology (fiction). Thx to User:Toughpigs. Please link this term somewhere in the article lede (and write the standard intro sentence). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Mythology" in this case means the historical backstory of the show's premise, see Mythology (fiction). Regarding notability, there are many books cited in the article, including:
This demonstrates that the subject is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (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.
lack of sources but its seems to being passed or fail WP;GNG BEAMALEXANDER25,talk 18:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom's rationale of "lack of sources" is not a valid reason for deletion. The individual has competed at the Olympics, so passes WP:NOLY. The nom has been on WP about 1 month, so I assume they are not versed in the notability requirements or WP:BEFORE. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:DINC. The article could use some work but the individual is notable. --Micky (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)". North America1000 03:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, passes WP:NOLY. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability under any of her stage names. Nominated for BLPPROD but removed as one source, a blog, exists. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely the article is an attempted promotion. That's what Bandcamp is for, not Wikipedia. Like the nominator, I can find no reliable or significant coverage under any of her various stage names, and the only sources found are the typical streaming and social media sites pushing her songs. Also, if this article is deleted, Yoko Kikuchi (animator) can be moved to this primary namespace. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV and seems to be self-promotional. Wikipedia is not the correct website for this. --Micky (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). All I can find in notable sources is a brief mention in a Daily Telegraph interview of the author. Edwardx (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eddie891's argument above. --Micky (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't see any notability - fails WP:NCORP. Sourced only from Companies house records (primary, and all UK companies have them), and from the self-service photo site Fotki, except for a single local interest article from the Courier and a site about vintage model vehicles: these might (marginally) just prevent a speedy delete but don't amount to a demonstration of notability. WP:BEFORE showed up nothing beyond the usual directory and advertising hits for a small-medium haulier's business. Sadly WP:NOTMEMORIAL must apply to businesses as well as to individuals. Ingratis (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel like I’m being stalked by this guy because his previous attempts at deleting my articles have failed, so I feel like throwing him a bone. - Seasider53 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can cut out the personal comments. The problem is that you insist on writing on borderline subjects which aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. That's your problem, not mine. Ingratis (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the author of the article agrees on deletion. --Micky (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No such newspaper exists. There are no reputable sources to indicate that it does. A Google search turns up nothing. Website on the article's page redirects to a spam site. Duranged (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it clearly existed based upon this article. Founded in 1922... (here). Sources conflict, seems like it folded into the Palm Beach Post in 1987, but a new paper was founded under the same name in 1998. See the 2005 websiteEddie891TalkWork 23:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palm Beach Post#History, the 1998 newspaper seems to be wholly non-notable, but the 1922-1978 one at least merits a mention in a section. Not opposed to keeping if the article is re-written to be about the other paper. Eddie891TalkWork 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Note: This discussion was actually initiated on 12 June 2020 (link), and was on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 12 log page (diff). As such, the relisting timeline is correct.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:35, 19 June 2020 (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.
WP:BLP of a voice actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically handed a free notability pass just because the article has roles listed in it -- the notability test is not the list of roles in and of itself, but the depth of media coverage he does or doesn't have about him and his work in at least some of the roles. But of the six footnotes here, three are to his own self-published web presence on NewGrounds and Tumblr, one is to IMDb and one is to a WordPress blog, none of which are reliable sources or valid support for notability at all -- and the only one that's to actual media just namechecks his existence a single time in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree, so it isn't enough to single-handedly get him over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only real source that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure there's no references supporting notability? I notice from a press release (which isn't good enough) that he plays the lead in both seasons of The Day My Butt Went Psycho!. I wouldn't want this to fall between the cracks. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor, I could not find any additional references besides a self-promotional press release as mentioned by Nfitz. --Micky (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with my PERSONAL BLESSING! I have a large body of TV work, but I'm not famous and I've always actively disliked this page for its inaccurate and irrelevant info. It's the second time someone has tried to create a page for me, despite me never wanting one. -Deven 99.245.136.199 (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well that puts it over the top - no butts about it. I couldn't anything that was even close to GNG that was independent of the source. Delete per WP:BIODELETENfitz (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does the subject fail GNG and ANYBIO, I don't believe that much of the information here is true. JavaHurricane 12:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I’m happy to be corrected but the sources don’t look reliable to me, the article lacks footnotes, and there are comments on the talk page about the content being a fantasy. The whole thing looks so doubtful that if we wane to ensure we only support reliable information, it needs to go.
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. After discussion at Deletion review there was consensus to overturn this close in favor of deletion. See the DRV discussion for more details. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another rail siding, as even the gazetteers agree, in the middle of a bunch of orchards and farms. I see nothing giving it any notability as such. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ok, so this article is obviously tiny and most people probably have never heard of this town nor will ever hear of it. However, in my opinion it does meet this, and if you go dig for it you might uncover some history. NYCDOT (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The settlement began as "Fagan Ranch". No doubt this is a place, identified here and here. This source writes "A siding on S.P.R.R. S of Gridley, is now a community". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's a place that exists, but not a notable one. No evidence that this is or was a "town". Not legally recognized and does not meet GNG, so it fails WP:GEOLAND #1 and #2. –dlthewave☎ 05:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fagan is recognized by the US government as a populated place, and Geoland #2 does not need legal recognition to establish notability. Moreover, in 1977, Forrest D. Dunn, a local researcher commissioned by a reputable organization, compiled a history of place names in Butte County and stated that Fagan "is now a community", and satellite images indeed show both farms and houses located at Fagan. So...three sources support that the place actually exists, one source states that the railroad siding became a community, and satellite images and street view shows old houses there. This absolutely exceeds the threshold for "proof". Do people living in the hamlet still called it Fagan? Did they call it Fagan 50 years ago? That we don't know. All we can do with these extinct place names is look at the sources, and one of them--a reliable one from 40 years ago--described this former stop on a railway with its own siding, which now has homes and farms, as a "community". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we take GNIS at face value (which we shouldn't), this would be a "populated place" which is a category used for places that specifically aren't officially recognized. Geoland #2 says that populated places without legal recognition are "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG", and I'm just not finding sufficient coverage to meet that requirement. One source saying it is/was a community is not enough. Every newspaper mention that I could find describes it as "Fagan ranch" or "Fagan place" with context making it very clear that this was just a ranch that was later subdivided. If we're analyzing satellite/streeetview images, I don't see a distinct cluster of homes that would be distinct from the typical sprinkling of houses in the area Southeast of Gridley. –dlthewave☎ 15:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a community at all. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Manzanita, Butte County, California This is a tricky one. The basic thrust of WP:GEOLAND is that if it is or ever was an actual community, it should be kept; if it was just a locale or some other type of name on the map, it should be deleted unless it passes GNG. Aside from the CSU Chico paper found by Magnolia677 I'm not seeing any other sources that refer to Fagan as a community. The city of Gridley 2 miles to the north has a long-running local paper, the Gridley Herald, with an extensive selection of back issues available as a free searchable online archive. When I searched the archive for Fagan, almost all the results were people with the last name Fagan. A search for "in Fagan" returned nothing. A search for "at Fagan" returned one result about "ordering six cars for the Southern Pacific siding at Fagan". A search for "from Fagan" returned two results: one about a company called Fagan Alligator Products from Dade City, Florida; one about "surfacing portions of Hwy 99E from Fagan station south of Gridley to the Biggs intersection". Looking at historic maps using the USGS topo explorer, I noticed that the high-res maps marked Fagan but the low-res maps marked the same area as Manzanita. This made me suspect that while the siding/station is called Fagan, the community that formed in that area became known as Manzanita instead. Further searches of the Gridley Herald archives substantiate this. Dozens of search results appear listing Manzanita alongside the more-established local cities of Gridley and Biggs. Most of these are in the context of the local school districts of those names, but not all, for example: "Dr. Ward urges all pet owners in the Biggs, Gridley and Manzanita areas to have their dogs and cats immunized against rabies." Other examples of coverage that implicitly treat Manzanita as a community, for example: "Gridley firefighters responded to a mobile home fire near Larkin Road in Manzanita." Finally, local toponymy also supports the name Manzanita; in addition to the school district and elementary school of that name, there is a Manzanita Market and there used to be a Manzanita Fire Station. Everything I've found leads me to believe that the author of the CSU Chico paper was saying that a community had formed around the site of the siding, not that that community was known as Fagan.−−−CactusJack 🌵 09:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am persuaded by CactusJack that Fagan is not and never has been a community. I am less persuaded that we should move to Manzanita. Although there is some evidence it might be a community, it sounds more like a district name.Glendoremus (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not a notable community. CJ's info suggests a Manzanita article may be reasonable, but that can be made separately. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find CJ's argument persuasive and agree a Manzanita article may be appropriate. --Micky (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2020 (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 existence of this article is predicated on its Spanish chart placing. I believe the citation is unclear and unreliable (It lists “Eres Mi Mejor Amante” by Luv' at No. 1, but this song is not listed on List of number-one singles of 1979 (Spain)), and therefore the article fails to meet the criteria as per WP:MUS. Skyrack95 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's no guarantee that the Wikipedia article is correct either – the book quoted in that article of number-one singles of 1979 is used all over Wikipedia for Spanish chart placings, but nobody has ever determined whether it's reliable or not. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diamond Cut (Bonnie Tyler album) - This seems like the least painful solution unless someone can deliver much more reliable evidence of reaching the top ten in Spain. And even if it did, the song does not seem to have much historical resonance anyway, as I can find no mentions of it in books or online outside of mentions of its parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doomsdayer520's suggestion. A quick search did not help me find any notable mentions of this either. --Micky (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Just because someone previously made an article on this topic that had an AFD 4 years ago, that doesn't automatically mean my article should be deleted too. I can't seem to see what the other one looked like - I don't know where to look for that information. Can you somehow link to the last version of the deleted one or is it gone for good? I would like to see what the issues were. According to the AFD, it said it was a word-for-word copyright violation, which mine would not be as I started from scratch and wrote things in my own words, so referencing the AFD from 2016 is null in that regard. As for how it meets notability guidelines, I disagree, because there are dozens of sources here to indicate that this topic has been reported on repeatedly. Initially it was criticized for not enough good sources, I added 20+ sources per criticism and merged Darren Storsley and Ron Wear into it, now it's criticized for WP:REFBOMB. So pray tell, what would it take to make this topic notable? Pretty much all the sources have one of the Courage Productions pageants as the main subject of the article, or one of the titleholders as the main subject of the article, so I don't see how that is not "substantial and meaningful" coverage. The vast majority of the sources are also articles from reputable news outlets, whether those are smaller ones like Langley Times or bigger ones like Vancouver Sun/The Province. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you don't like it having the "Miss BC" title, I just renamed it recently but it can be renamed back to "Courage Productions" with "Miss BC" just redirecting to it. It's more about the company that manages a big pageant with multiple titles than about the "Miss BC" title alone. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As well, you argued it was promotional when you suggested it for a "speedy delete" and I removed the part that I thought was promotional. The admin who removed the speedy delete agreed it was not entirely promotional. If it just sounds too promotional, that can easily be fixed if someone experienced can take a look at what is problematic. Personally, I don't think any of it sounds promotional to me, so I think someone more experienced should help. Unless it's fine now re: "advertisement" concerns. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References don't demonstrate notability. I hear Wiki2008time's concern that the Afd from years ago doesn't mean an automatic Afd but this article as stands doesn't demonstrate notability. Needs more WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS which I'm just not seeing. Jackreed86 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable paegant with next to no coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on coverage in reliable sources: How are these not reliable sources? The Record? The Now? The Langley Times? North Shore News? Langley Advance? Surrey Now? Abbotsford News? Peace Arch News? Columbia Valley Pioneer? Indo-Canadian Voice? Vancouver Sun? BC Local News? Prince George Citizen? The Province? Yahoo Trending? Huffington Post BC? CTV Vancouver? If you're from BC, you'll know these are all reputable news outlets - just google some of them. If you just skimmed the sources, you may have had selective attention and just noticed some of the more questionable sources; if someone wants to remove those to keep the article, that's fair game, I just think slightly questionable sources do provide some useful biographical info. --Wiki2008time (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 7 more sources from the Shalom Reimer page, in anticipation of that one possibly getting recommended for a merge given the AfD. Additional sources besides the ones mentioned above include 604 Now, Light Magazine, and Saanich News. Once again, I argue that there are plenty of good sources that cover this topic in one way or another, meeting WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding every source on the internet is not helpful. You need to provide in depth coverage instead of WP:REFBOMBing the article, making it impossible for anyone to discern if there is actual sigcov. Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added 4 more sources from the Gloren Guelos page, again in anticipation of a merger given the AfD. Additional sources besides the ones mentioned above include Cloverdale Reporter, Chilliwack Progress, and United Way Lower Mainland. Maybe the United Way one isn't a great source, but the other 2 are additional examples of reputable news outlets within British Columbia that have reported on Miss BC. I counted around 20 good sources reporting on Miss BC. The nominator complains WP:REFBOMB but then other people say WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. So are there not enough good sources or too many? The arguments seem prejudiced without actually looking into the sources in depth. I am not making it "impossible" to discern if there's actual sigcov, I am doing my best to add in many good articles, and everyone is taking one quick look at the sources and shouting "REFBOMB" or "not WP:RS" without actually looking into any of them. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]
@Wiki2008time, having gone through your talk page it seems as though almost all your articles are being nominated for deletion by various editors. Now my advice is; since you are a new editor, it is best you take things slow & first & foremost begin to study our policies & guidelines pertaining to notability. That would save you a whole lot of heartache. I don’t think anyone is biting you it’s just a matter of competency or the lack of it on your part. I’m really sorry colleague if that sounds a tad bit harsh. But I’d leave a couple of relevant links to basic policies that you’d need to study in your talk page. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not my other articles will be deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. This particular article has many more sources than other articles I have worked on, which I have since tried to merge into this article if they had no additional notability outside the pageant. I suggest people look at the sources from this article in depth before deciding that this is WP:REFBOMB and that the coverage is not WP:SIGCOV, because it seems to me to be premature and attacking a newbie just because I might be "trying too hard" to add in sources. Unless you look at the 20 good sources that I mentioned and determine that they don't provide enough coverage on this topic to merit keeping the article, deletion is premature. If you want to delete some of the other sources, like links from the MissBC/MissUniverse/MissWorld/YouTube/Instagram/etc websites, that may make sense despite losing some potentially useful extra information (e.g. for a couple pageant years, I could only find the names of *all* winners on the televised copy of the pageant, which I could only find on YouTube - but some articles still mention some of the winners even if not listing all of them, so YouTube removals would only lead to a few winner names not being supported), but deletion of the entire article seems premature. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just added 4 more sources from The Nothern View, Aldergrove Star, Coast Reporter, and another from Columbia Valley Pioneer. All BC newspapers. Over 20 reputable local/provincial/sometimes national newspapers have been cited in this article, sometimes more than once if the particular source wrote more than one article on Miss BC. --Wiki2008time (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be substantial and ongoing coverage of this pageant in multiple reliable sources. I understand why individual contestants and winners are normally deleted and/or merge/redirected, with issues of limited coverage or "1event". I can also understand why we wouldn't give every title its own article. But, it makes sense to have an article on the overall organization. While some poor quality sources are used, that can easily be fixed. This is a straightforward case of meeting WP:GNG. I don't think any pageant gets an "auto keep". Merely being a provincial pageant doesn't mean anything, since anybody can make one of those. But, the coverage given, as warranted an article. Quite easily. --Rob (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same argument as Rob. I think the article needs a lot of work and is currently suffering from a bit of WP:REFBOMB, but only because the user who created the article is new and really wants to demonstrate SigCov. The sources do exist. GNG is met. I think it's an easy keep. Samsmachado (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes - I'm just "trying too hard" to demonstrate sigcov, I'm not purposefully doing WP:REFBOMB to be deceptive. --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I literally just came onto wikipedia to find information about this pageant and APPARENTLY it might get deleted?? That's ridiculous. A day later and I would have missed out. I've heard of many of the winners in the news multiple times. This pageant is a big deal in BC and we need an article for it. Please keep it. Fix it or whatever you need to do, just don't do something as ridiculous as delete it. Also if someone could update what's going on with the 2020 pageant in light of the pandemic, that would be great, thanks. --Danimeers (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that all of the comments by Wiki2008time have been struck through as they have been blocked for engaging in sockpuppetry. Their sockpuppet, Xannir (also now blocked), has involved themselves with editing of the Miss BC article. Nick (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: AfD disrupted by sockpuppetry, more discussion would be useful to establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally closed this unaware of the sock-puppetry situation. I'll give my reasoning for that here, and let somebody else decide, then: many of the arguments very obviously fall into WP:AADD (eg. "This pageant is a big deal in BC..." which is WP:PLEASEDONT). What remains are the two conflicting statements "next to no coverage in reliable sources" and "there seems to be substantial and ongoing coverage of this pageant in multiple reliable sources". Only one of these two can be true. A look at the references cited, despite the issues of cite-bombing (WP:DINC which I pointed out at the time), seems to render the delete argument invalid ("references don't demonstrate notability" was also particularly puzzling, there's AFAIK no requirement that references demonstrate that a subject is "notable" or otherwise "extraordinary", only that they cover said subject to an appreciable depth), since a lot of those references are indeed coverage about the pageant (or it's winners...) in reliable independent sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great perhaps you can point out which of the 70 sources thrown in there feature independent and in-depth coverage of this pageant? Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This (from the Huffington Post) is in-depth coverage about a winner; This from the Vancouver Sun is also that. This (The Now)... Obviously, what these sources demonstrate is that there is persistent coverage of the yearly winners of the competition; coverage which is apparently due only to them winning the competition (and a lot of those BLPs get merged there because of WP:BLP1E). Also, the fact that the competition leads directly to the national-level competition (whose article is in a sorry state) might be a factor in that too, and the fact that it keeps getting mentioned in news which don't always just focus on the winner clearly shows that this topic has generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and passes WP:GNG.
Some of the sources also have more in-depth coverage on the pageant itself, eg. this (more than half the article) or this (also a few paragraphs). I might be bothered to look for more in those (like the above) already cited in the article, but clearly I have demonstrated here that there are multiple (at least two for the competition, many others for the winners) independent reliable sources which discuss this topic or sub-topic of it to a significant depth; therefore easy keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by RandomCanadian. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The keep arguments are stronger than the delete arguments. At first glance, any article with WP:REFBOMB could be hastily dismissed in one sentence without examining sources. In contrast, the keep arguments make several good points. Yes the article needs cleanup, but RandomCanadian is right to reference WP:DINC. Easy keep. --Micky (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, shouldn't relisting for sockpuppetry happen if the sockpuppet disrupted the discussion itself? AFAICS, this AfD was closed as keep before the sockpuppet's first edit on the article itself. That bore no influence on the AfD, so I question the striking through and the relist. Changing my !vote to speedy keep. --Micky (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Micericky: Well obviously it's User:Nick who undid the original close and struck the comments - I'm certainly not going to overrule an admin on it (not in this situation, especially), but WP:SOCKSTRIKE doesn't seem to apply here, as you point out, and in any case the sock hasn't commented here anyway so it's not like there's a duplicate vote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fair enough, but good points - we're confused about the striking, @Nick:? --Micky (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE is an essay, not a policy, however it suggests cleaning up after socks in the least disruptive way possible. The sensible approach here was to strike the comments because of the overlap in editing undertaken by Wiki2008time and their sockpuppet account, such as editing the Miss BC article and using their sock to close a Redirect for Deletion discussion concerning the Miss BC article. I did consider other options, such as closing the AfD and undertaking a procedural new AfD, but striking the comments and re-listing the AfD was the least disruptive and most sensible option. You can still see the comments Wiki2008time left, you're made aware of the sockpuppetry and if you wish to change, modify or strike your own comments, you're able to do that. Nick (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Micericky, signing himself as Micky, is a sock of user:Wiki2008time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Jackreed86 is a sock of user:Vipulsshah. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for delete and new article There is been 10 edits on it, outwith the sock, of which about 8 are rollbacks, bots, removing a link and category updates and so on, leaving 2 genuine edits to the article itself. The version history is stonkingly bad. I think it should be WP:TNT'd, and restarted as a nice clean article, by somebody else. I think it should go. Does anybody a view on that? scope_creepTalk 10:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources are comprehensively bad, outwith standard and will need to removed anyway. Why not go the whole hog. scope_creepTalk 10:50, 26 June 2020 (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.
Article about a single with no assertion of notability, and no independent sources. Recreated after being redirected to band article. Slashme (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article per nom, not notable. --Micky (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article are independent, in-depth reliable and verifiable coverage of the subject. What's here are links to facebook, twitter, Amazon music and itunes. A search of Google turns up no meaningful sources. Alansohn (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur, all I see are UGC, not demonstrating independent coverage in secondary sources. --Micky (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2020 (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.
WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG.
There is currently only one supporting citation. The article seems to be WP:TOOSOON, re games dating from 2014 to present. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my review of the sources in the article and sources found online show a lack of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or any other notability measure. Only one of the three sources in the article actually even has the word "moonshine" in it, and that's the Forgotten5 reference--13:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete my search of online sources shows that a few bloggers and medium posters have called it the name of the rivalry, but it's basically a non-notable neologism. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyerT·C 22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another non-notable sports rivalry. --Micky (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches didn't turn up significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's sourcing to "forgotten5" appears to be a blog and does not appear to be sufficient. The series also lacks key criteria of traditional rivalries. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article about a very recently established CFB "rivalry" game (though there were a couple earlier meetings, the article itself states that "the rivalry was established in 2014"), so it's probably WP:TOOSOON in that regard. The only source to call this a rivalry is a non-RS blog site. If this article is kept for some reason, it should definitely be moved to a different title. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is described here in various capacities (most substantially as a scientist/inventor and secondarily as a member of the military), but I don't see any credible claim that he passes the notability guideline for any of these categories. (The main claim to scientific notability is his patents, which are explicitly excluded as convincing evidence under WP:NPROF.) There are lots of references in the article, but none of them cover him in-depth (except for the obituary in local newspapers). Overall he seems like an interesting person who does not pass any of our notability guidelines. JBL (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons given by the nominator, the article contains numerous dubious references and some dubious claims, raising significant WP:V issues. For example, for the subject's 1966 PhD from the University of Missouri the article gives two refs. The first, occuring in the leade, is a broken link to celebstrendingnow.com/william-kane-net-worth/. The other ref, occuring in the 'Patents' section is this [14], which is a link to an August 2008 story in a local Lake Placid newspaper regarding a town-wide bike ride event. The 'Education and Career' section opens with: "He attended the university of Colorado in Boulder where he studied Geology, publishing in 1949 a paper on Sediment Size Analysis which calculated textual parameters using Fortran". The second part of this sentence is both nonsensical and implausible. The programming language Fortran did not exist until 1954 at the earliest and there were certanly no papers published in 1949 about programming something in Fortran. The ref given to support this claim [15] is garbled and unclear. All in all, too little here to indicate notability under WP:GNG, and there are some WP:V issues as well. Nsk92 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBL & Nsk92, this does not meet WP:GNG and has WP:V concerns. --Micky (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT, although it also seems that the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Is there maybe a WP:COMPETENCE issue here? The article presents a garbled view of things but there seems to be an underlying grain of truth. Someone named William T. Kane, of U. Missouri, really did publish an article about a FORTRAN analysis of sediment grain, but it was in 1963 [16]. The Google Books link for that claim, to the Geological Survey Bulletin, really does mention Kane and a FORTRAN program for sediment analysis, but it's just an index entry, insufficiently in-depth to use as a source for anything. And the metadata page for the Google Books link really does say that it's from 1949, but Google often lists compilations from periodicals by their start date even though many parts of the compilation may be from much later. A competent editor would have noticed the mismatch and dug deeper to find out the real story; this one just spewed back what they read without thinking about whether it made sense. For a similarly garbled-looking story, see another creation by the same editor, Mabel Norris Reese. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not the original article on Kane, the previous one was similarly deleted and wasn't available for review. The article was written because of the notable persons listed for Jamaica N.Y. his was an article in 'red'. I find that there are editors whose goals leans to making a leaner encyclopedia by simply removing articles, rather than investigating and adding to the narrative, or correcting the failures as they perceive them. Many notables are unrepresented due to there having been no mentions in newpapers or journals of their notability, nor books mentioning them by name. This does not make them any less deserving of having made a difference than the numerous fictional people, cartoon characters or popular images that fill the pages of Wikipedia. Kane led an exemplary life, his service record alone and the medals he gained from his cold war exploits as a spy alone should qualify him as notable. What was missed in this is the nature of his claim to notoriety, namely that had he not while working for corning solved the problem of refraction of signal noise which made fibre optic communication possible, leading to todays FIOS and other digital communication over land and undersea in the cables laid there. Find and restore his original article, his original article was probably better written than mine, but as a son of Jamaica he is notable and deserves editors that can improve the quality of the article, not consign it to the dustheap of bad writing. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having a few patents is not sufficient for notability. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2020 (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. Notability has been clearly established and the article was rewritten to remove the promotionalism. (non-admin closure) Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well it's definitely not a G11, it has no extensive use of peacock terms unless you count small, gourmet, or exotic truffles. It also has significant coverage in Scottish reliable sources such as Daily Herald and Northern Times as well as featuring in a Channel 4 programme, passes WP:CORPDEPTH imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had intended to highlight the part of the article that prompted my !vote, but that ended up being all of it except for the first sentence:
Founded in 2006 by two entrepreneurs James Vincent Findlay and his civil partner Paul Maden, roughly 100 truffle recipes were tested before they decided on the final 25. Since then, Cocoa Mountain has been awarded the `Scotland Food and Drink Excellence Award` for food tourism in 2009. Cocoa Mountain uses exotic truffle flavours in its chocolates and produces its own hot chocolate served on the premises in the Cocoa Mountain Chocolate Bar. Where possible, the company uses local and ethically sourced ingredients. A large order from Prince Charles was turned down after it was requested that the company add preservatives to a truffle recipe. US Senators and Middle Eastern tycoons are also customers.
The above excerpt, and by that I mean what amounts to the entire article, should make clear what the intent of the article is. If not WP:G11, it is certainly an egregious violation of WP:SPAM. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's promotional then I suppose you want to delete most of wikipedia's company pages except the articles that imply a product is crap Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case the article has been re-edited to be more neutral Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Puzzledvegetable's arguments. This comes across as spam indeed. --Micky (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cocoa Mountain can probably lay claim to being the most northerly chocolate producer in Britain, situated, as it is, in the top west corner of Scotland, half a mile on from the village of Durness. It was started by James Findley and Paul Maden in 2006 on a 1955 RAF Cold War early-warning base that was never used. ...
You might think them both mad for situating their business right at the top of the country, but James and Paul have a great relationship with their local postmaster, who during busy periods like Christmas and Easter comes three or four times a day. They reckon they can get a box of their chocs anywhere in the UK in twenty-four hours.
Their handiwork comes in a great many wonderful flavours, with their white chocolate with chilli and lemon grass being my favourite combination, just pipping the strawberry and black pepper.
However, it was their mug of hot chocolate that really impressed me. ...
Cocoa Mountain's hot chocolate, on the other hand, is almost a meal in itself, and comes topped with liquid chocolate deliberately running over the edge and down the sides. Served in a handless cup handmade by the potter next door, which means it needs cupping with both hands like soup, it's the sort of drink you have to get stuck into. No wonder it proves popular with walkers and day-trippers looking for an energy hit and something to warm their bones after a bracing walk along the coast.
Paul Maden and James Findlay run Cocoa Mountain, a small luxury chocolate-making business near Balnakeil on the Sutherland coast, 105 miles (169km) north of Inverness.
...
Paul and James decided the best way to rectify this situation was to have a separate production line for the hot chocolate.
But they needed finance and Dragons' Den offered an opportunity to secure some crucial investment.
...
But the Dragons refused to green light their hoped-for £80,000, 15%, stake in the business.
The chocolatiers were told by the Dragons that they should have set up their business somewhere closer to markets in the south, and that the far north west coast was a "diabolical" place to try to run an operation such as theirs.
...
Since then, Paul and James have opened a shop in Dornoch and secured the investment they need for a new facility in Perth dedicated to making their hot chocolate.
I arrive at the village of Durness – 90 miles from John O’Groats – and pull up outside Cocoa Mountain, the most incongruously placed luxury chocolatier and café imaginable. While the scenery beyond the village is stunning, the immediate surroundings are less promising: Cocoa Mountain is housed in a squat building in Balnakeil Craft Village, where former army buildings linked to an early warning system of nuclear attack have been converted into a collection of artist studios and small-scale industries.
Unwrap the outer layer, step inside and it’s a different story. Cocoa Mountain’s shelves are stocked with exotic-flavoured truffles: chilli and lemongrass, peanut butter and cranberry, ginger and cinnamon. Pieces of stem ginger are entombed in dark chocolate; shards of white chocolate with pecan dangle temptingly on a ledge. The show-stopper is the hot chocolate, frothing to the brim and oozing with melted white and dark chocolate, a combination so gloriously gloopy you suspect it might retain its shape were you to remove it from the mug. For those in need of a buzz rather than a chocolate-induced coma, the fair-trade Mountain Mocha coffee is a winner.
The café is run by Paul Maden and partner James Findlay who opened for business in 2006. The obvious question when I meet Paul is, why here? “Why not here?” he replies. “Chocolate has to come 4,000 miles or so to get to the UK. Getting it the last 400 miles isn’t such a big deal.”
Paul Maden, 45, and James Findlay, 40, whose luxury chocolate company Cocoa Mountain has attracted fans from Prince Charles to Yoko Ono, claim their lifestyle offended locals.
...
The chocolatiers live in the Balnakeil Craft Village, a former Cold War camp, and count among their neighbours a German porn star.
Cocoa Mountain, which uses milk from Highland cows in its exotic chocolates, some of which are allegedly 'natural aphrodisiacs', and the couple have not made the final decision to leave as they rely on locally sourced produce.
Prince Charles once asked the chocolatiers to blend his Barrogill whisky into a truffle, but they turned him down because they did not want to use preservatives.
THEY were savaged in Dragons' Den and ridiculed for trying to run a business from the remotest north westerly village on mainland Britain – branded by the tycoons as a place for "hippies".
But now Paul Maden and James Findlay of Cocoa Mountain are making the dragons eat their words – or rather drink them.
The entrepreneurs are on course to become millionaires by launching a hot chocolate drink the Dragons rejected.
They already have landed major export orders from Japan, Portugal, Singapore and Norway, and are in "encouraging" talks with supermarkets and coffee shop chains.
The pair expect to be turning over £5 million in less than five years after they launched Cocoa Mountain The Best Hot Chocolate in January from a brand new purpose built factory.
Mr Findlay and Mr Maden did not manage to secure the £80,000 investment for a 15 per cent stake on Dragons' Den when they appeared on the show in August 2015.
Cocoa Mountain owners Paul Maden and James Findlay, who started up their business in Durness nearly 11 years ago, hope to expand into the Dornoch premises in early June.
...
As well as truffles and bars, the company’s hot chocolate has fans said to include former England cricketer Ian Botham, former Rangers’ boss Ally McCoist and actress Juliet Stevenson.
Cocoa Mountain use milk from Highland cows in its exotic chocolates, some of which are allegedly ‘natural aphrodisiacs’.
The business is also known for its ethical sourcing of quality cocoa in South America.
Our morning drive to the Balnakeil Craft Village, in the northwest corner of Scotland, involves long stretches of single-lane highway lined by barren, rocky ridges that disappear into the clouds. The mood is edge-of-the-world ethereal, which is appropriate—we’re headed to Cocoa Mountain, perhaps the most remote artisanal chocolate producer in Europe.
Twelve years ago, James Findlay and Paul Maden left white-collar careers to set up a chocolate factory and café in this village of artists and crafters, which sprang up in the 1960s at an abandoned Cold War early warning station. Cocoa Mountain’s hot chocolate is probably the best I’ve ever had.
Cocoa Mountain, a luxury chocolate company in Durness in Sutherland can list the royal family, US senators, actors, Arab tycoons, super-rich Russians and Yoko Ono among its fans.
Only last week retired US Senator Daniel Boatwright came to the company's HQ personally to taste handmade truffles and order 50 boxes to be shipped over to California.
Wealthy Russian oligarchs are placing their orders by telephone, as are American bankers. Rich Middle Eastern tycoons from Dubai are emailing in their requirements. And Prince Charles is something of fan too, although he was snubbed by the firm for daring to suggest they tweak their recipes.
Cocoa Mountain, based in Durness in Sutherland, claims the GBP200,000 venture will create 11 new jobs, more than doubling its workforce. The majority will be in the new premises.
The company, which produces 500,000 truffles per year, hopes to become Scotland's biggest producer of the confection.
Set up just four years ago in an abandoned sergeant's mess in part of an old RAF Cold War camp by two friends, James Findlay and Paul Maden, Cocoa Mountain now receives orders from all over the globe.
Its customers have included Truly, Madly, Deeply actress Juliet Stephenson, members of a Middle Eastern royal family, a top investment banker in New York and retired US Senator Daniel Boatwright - who beat a path to Cocoa Mountain to personally order 50 boxes of truffles to be shipped over to California for a political shindig.
However, tucked away in a former military camp about as far north as you can travel on the British mainland, Paul Maden and James Findlay are finding that demand for exotic chocolates has not slowed along with the rest of the economy.
Two years after starting up Cocoa Mountain, they are dispatching orders worldwide and have seen a growing demand for their product to be supplied for weddings and corporate functions.
...
Before setting up the business, Mr Findlay, 35, from Rutherglen, was an IT specialist with IBM, while Mr Maden, 40, from Blackburn, worked at Paisley University as part-time lecturer and parttime adviser to students on how to set up a business. Both were enthusiastic hill walkers and travelled north for trips to the Sutherland hills.
A TINY chocolate company has turned down an offer from Prince Charles to create luxury truffles using his whisky - because it was asked to add preservatives.
The Prince wanted to blend his whisky Barrogill with a truffle produced by Britain's remotest chocolate factory.
But the owners of Cocoa Mountains turned down the Prince's Mey Selections because the Scots firm insists on using only natural ingredients.
...
Cocoa Mountain was started by Mr Madden and James Findlay in June 2006.
One of the best rewards in life, though, is, of course, chocolate. And above all else he recommended, David had impressed on me that I must, must must visit the chocolate producer Cocoa Mountain. Well, now it is my turn to impress the same thing upon you. Because if you are anywhere within even the vainest hope's distance of fitting in a stop here, then you absolutely have to call in.
That Cocoa Mountain is here seems so unlikely at first. You are in Durness, for a start, the most north-westerly village in mainland Britain and by most measures the most remote to boot. But then you come across a craft village. There are art galleries here, as well as ceramicists and woodworkers, and in the midst of it all, just about the best chocolatier in Scotland.
Cocoa Mountain is primarily a café and so I take a seat at a table with a cracker of a view of the mountains and start to narrow down the choices in front of me. There are dozens of chocolates sitting in neat, cubed rows behind glass at the counter, and a hot chocolate comes with two on the side. There are champagne truffles, strawberry with black pepper, and peppermint fondants, not to mention whisky chocolates and a Turkish delight. Two was never going to be enough.
The Wikipedia article contains positive material about Cocoa Mountain. I do not consider this positive material to make the article overly promotional. The article does not qualify for WP:G11. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2020 (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.
As per my previous nom, absolutely nothing has changed. fails WP:NFILM. The sources are spam/SEO work and PR pieces Praxidicae (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. –User456541 11:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable film. In my research, the Chicago Tribune source has a little bit about it, but I did not find any authoritative review of the film that would indicate that a standalone article is warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable film according to search results, this is all promotional. --Micky (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2020 (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. Despite the amount of text, this is a poor discussion. We have basically three valid contributions: Gleeanon409, who has provided sources that they think support notability, and Zaathras and Gene93k, who think that these sources are insufficient. The rest of the discussion is just hot air: assertions of (non-)notability, personal attacks, walls of text that I haven't read, and a superseded nomination (it is no longer true that the article is unsourced). If this is renominated, the discussion should focus more closely whether the sources now cited establish notability or not. Sandstein 07:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
subject has not won any awards. bio reads like it was lifted from a porn studio bio page. article has not been improved in nearly 12 years and no references at all. I would call speedy deletion for this. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify @AlejandroLeloirRey:, you followed WP:Before, searches diligently for sources, and considered merging before nominating for deletion? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shellwood: I think I did. why don't you come to the point? do you have some sources I have missed? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: are you here to personal attach me or to help to improve the article? just add the sources to the article and if they are good ones I will delete my nomination. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: I have nothing against the subject and I wouldn't mind to delete my nomination (as I have done before) if the subject is notable. still, i believe that no articles with no sources should ever be on wikipedia as wikipedia is a third part source, wikipedia should publish only things that other have published already. If we want wikipedia to be considered reliable and respectable we shouldn't allow articles with no sources to be here for decades. Such an article would never be accepted today and the only reason why this one is here is that it was published ages ago. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m working to incorporate the rather lengthy interview with him, then to incorporate some of the dozen+ book leads I unearthed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’ve found, and am working to incorporate five interviews done with Slater. Additionally I have well over a dozen book leads, although some are more about male pin-up photography. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: I have found some books also but only male photography or books which mention him there fore not of any use. Please, also remember that interviews do not prove notability, so we need to find something different also.when you are done adding the sources you found let us know, if the sources are enough to prove notability I will dellete my nomination. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: I gave a look to what you are doing. I am touched by your effort but what you are doing is all wrong. you took a few interviews he gave (the sourcing is his own website reporting the interview... not reliable at all) and reported what he said considering it true. what a person says in an interview is not always true so, unless the interview is on a paper with very high reputation, this is why we need second sources. finally you report a lot of things that are of no interest on an eciclopedia. so many details just to fill up a page and make it look longer and more important. I give you and advice, stop including this useless interviews and concentrate on the books, if you can find also only one book (a good one) that dedicate one entire chapter to the subject it might be enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are undoubtedly considered reliable. A person is considered an expert on themselves, unless you have proof they regularly lie we accept their word on most every issue. Most sources get their content by conducting interviews.
The content being added is in line with what a WP:Good article would have, much more than dry bare facts.
The interviews are archived on his former website. Do you think he fabricated them? What is your reason to believe that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: look, I was in your position when I started to contribute to wikipedia. Unfortunately most of the things you say are wrong. Here is not important mine or your opinion but what wikipedia's community decided in the guidelines. Here you find what an article needs to be considered notable GNG, or here WP:BIO for bio. This is what you must fulfill. Here it explains you that anything self published in considered unreliable WP:USESPS (so you should find the original articles not those reported in his web sites where he might have made some changing). here it tells you what is a reliable source:WP:RS. Interviews can be used for a few fat checking but they do not prove notability. the fact itself that something is only on interview and no secondary sources report it tells you that that thing is either too new(not this case) or marginally (not important). if you want to report a single fact he told in an interview is fine but you can not rely only on interviews and as I have already said they do not prove notability. concentrate on books or, at least, very important papers. for porn the best web sites for sourcing are https://avn.com/ and https://www.xbiz.com/ but you might find other websites also. if you want you can check what i did for Carlo Masi to have a clue of what is considered an article with good sources.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: I am going to tell you one by one what it is wrong with the sources, so you can decide what to do with each one. 1) this is an interview, if the article is not deleted we can find the original interview on AVN.com, still is an interview so it doesn't prove notability (the most important thing here) and it's use is controversial. you might take a bit of information from here, but just a couple of small things. 2) it's another interview but with along introduction so you might take something from the introduction but no more than this, you have already used an interview. I have strong doubts about the website: gaypornspace.com, mostly will tell you it is unreliable and I believe that too. 3) very same article of 2. 4) i don't know the website: outpersonals.com but it is selfpublished so not usable. 5) it is not about the subject which is not even mentioned. 6) another interview on another unreliable website: www.centurionpicturesxxx.com. 7)another interview form outpersonals.com. 8 and 9) prizes list. so far there is not one single thing pointing toward notability. one thing you might wanna try to do is to find out when those interviews were published to prove that he was covered by media for years but considering that those are unknown websites i doubt anyone would accept his thesis, I would say no. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: one last thing. I understand your frustration. Keep in mind that my article about Carlo Masi was rejected tree times and was accepted only here on AFD (I asked to nominate it). Someone thought that the sourcing did not prove notability: vanityfair, a biography written by one of the most important italian writes, articles on the most prestigious italian news papers, his bio in 2 different books of the most important porn actors and hundreds of articles from all around the world. consider that I used more than 60 different reliable sources for that articles. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. These are not self-published, like a blog might be, but more technically self-reported, re-produced. There remains zero proof they are false.
Interviews are just as valid for notability as anything else.
Once I’m done with the interviews I’ll move onto other websites and books. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: look, I told you what I told you because I can see you wanna save this article and I told you what you really need to do to save it. I told you that I could find the original interviews so the problem with the interviews is not that they are reproduced but that they are interviews (first sources) and not on relevant papers/web sites. the only one which is auto-published is outpersonals.com. I told you that the use of interviews as a source is mostly controversial and allowed in specific cases and they rarely have a role into proving notability. The point is, if someone did something notable someone other them them-self should have written something about it. if you take a little time to read the links i gave you, you shall see these information are correct. when you say something, you can't say it is true because nobody has a prove that it is false. this is not a valid defense of what you say. wikipedia takes things as true when they are published on a reliable source. do you want to safe this article? find a good secondary source that extensively covers the subject. i tried to find it and i did not succeed but i might have missed something that you might find. stop wasting time writing any single irrelevant detail you find on interviews and concentrate on the only thing that it really matters: good second and third sources. find an important book about the subject, or which at least has one chapter about the subject. Find articles on respected papers that speak about the subject, do not waste time analyzing web sites like www.centurionpicturesxxx.com or outpersonals.com.
@Gleeanon409: I just read again what you recently wrote in this article. the article now reads as a promotional bio based on interviews. most of the things you wrote are unimportant and should not be on wikipedia. I advice you once more to reed other porn stars bio and you shall see that they are extremely dry. nobody needs to know his cat's name or how tall his father was. for the very last time, do not waste your time on this but focus on finding stuff that proves notability GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list) and WP:BIO (People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]).--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure you mean well, my previous answers still stand so I see no reason to repeat myself. I have probably forty more sources to go through and will add them accordingly.p.s. Slater doesn’t have a cat. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment So far a lot of nothing has been added to the sources. Moreover, the article now is a complete mess. Basically it is a celebrative article that summarize what he says about him self on interviews. the interviews are not on important papers or magazines so themselves do not prove notability (may be they can be used to prove one single fact. May be. But definitely not notability). I went trough every single article and there is not one single pointing toward notability. plus, many articles are taken from his personal page or they are simply the advertising page of a film he did or directed or pages with he winners of some prize... Finally, there is more than one article where his name does not even appear. I can't really see where notability should come from with this sourcing. moreover, for someone who is supposedly known also as a soundtrack composer I would expect to easily find a lot of good sources.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgement on sourcing has some blank spots I’m afraid. First you weren’t able to find any, now out of the dozens so far you insist that none are notable. John F Carr, and Race Bannon are both well respected journalists and writers, especially within the gay BDSM and porn world’s, both their articles were run by AVN, which you cite as a preferred source.
Your understanding of how the music industry is also lacking. Unless one hires a publicity agent to push for coverage and interviews out of the hundreds and thousands of releases, you just are not likely to get any. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, of course, when I say I can't find any I mean any that make any difference to prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, meets GNG, as co-owner of the world’s largest gay erotica company this should be obvious to all. Nom either didn’t look, or willfully ignored dozens of available sources, then tried to invent that interviews don’t count. In addition to the ones already on the article I’m looking through the following:
Most of these are not available online so will be slower to access them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interview comments generally don't count towards WP:GNG because they aren't independent of the subject. Of the book sources listed above:
Jeffrey Escoffier is a good source for information about pornographic actors, but the book includes only the one quote from Mr. Slater: Director J. D. Slater, who adopted the laissez-faire approach, said .... This is trivial coverage.
Gay San Francisco is a self-published memoir by Jack Fritscher. (He and his partner founded Palm Drive Publishing as a vehicle for his books.) He namedrops Mr. Slater in the dedication; Mr. Slater's name also appears in the title of some Drummer (magazine) articles cited in the bibliography. This is trivial coverage.
Mapplethorpe is another Fritscher memoir, originally self-published and now print-on-demand. The text is available online: here are allegations about Mr. Slater's personal relationships, here and here are passing mentions. None of this can support a BLP.
Hustle is a book of pornographic photographs by Kent Taylor; according to the "About the Author" blurb, Mr. Taylor is the vice president of Mr. Slater's pornography company. I have found no indication that Mr. Slater has any other involvement with the book.
Outweek is a namedrop in someone else's obituary. This is trivial coverage.
Raging Stallion: Magnum is another Kent Taylor photobook; same deal as Hustle.
Pier Groups: Art and Sex Along the New York Waterfront: I couldn't find this edition, but I did find an earlier version of the same text. It contains a passing mention of a photograph of Mr. Slater: the photographer Stanley Stellar ran into his colleague Peter Hujar during a photo shoot on Pier 46 in 1981. Hujar allowed Stellar to photograph him having sex in the background of a picture of the half-naked porn star J.D. Slater leaning against a doorway alongside a Keith Haring grafitti. This is trivial coverage.
Calendar Boys is another pornographic photobook. I don't know what the connection is to Mr. Slater.
Outback Currawong Creek is a self-published pornographic photobook. Again, no apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
Gay Pioneers is another self-published Jack Fritscher memoir. It seems very similar to Gay San Francisco, and likewise namedrops Mr. Slater only in the dedication and bibliography sections.[17]. This is trivial coverage.
Thrust: A Spasmodic Pictorial History of the Codpiece in Art does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Real Men is a pornographic photobook by Ray Dragon. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
Men of the World is a pornographic photobook. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
The Films of Ken Ryker is a pornographic photobook. The book description states that it also contains interviews with Mr. Ryker's associates, which I suppose might possibly include Mr. Slater.
In Lust We Trust does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Sorry I asked : intimate interviews with gay porn's rank and file. I suppose it might include an interview with Mr. Slater, but I have found no indication of this.
Bears on Bears: Interviews and Discussions does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Wide-Open Town does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Pornography: Film and Culture does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
Male Bondage is a pornographic photobook. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
One-Handed Histories: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography does actually mention Mr. Slater: it states that his films include high-risk sexual activity. I suppose that this is coverage of a sort.
Raging Stallion: To the Last Man is another Kent Taylor pornographic photobook.
Rarely Pure and Never Simple is a posthumously published collection of personal/autobiographical essays by Scott O'Hara.
Out of all of these, the only potentially useful source is the Burger One-Handed Histories book. Cheers, gnu57 04:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but even so (needs to ce cheked), only one book with a short coverage (not even a chapter) is not enough to prove notoriety. anyhow, I think that if the article survives it will need a major mork to make it accetable. at the moment is a celebrative summary of a celebratory summary of his interviews and a collection of advertisements, mentions and things tightened by himself. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gleeanon409's extensive efforts at improving citations. The argument for deletion here is not that the topic is not notable enough, but that the article is not well cited enough, and someone is working to fix that. Remember people, WP:DINC. I see a lot of that today. --Micky (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
are you telling us to keep it as a prize for "someone" effort?. I appreciate the effort that Gleeanon409 is putting into this article but it is the article that has to be notable not the effort. The reason why the article is under examination is that it's notability is not proved by the current sourcing. I extensively explained what kind of sourcing we need to prove notability and i was repetitively ignored. the sourcing now is a long list of nothing. Hopefully something will come out from the books. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’m working through the books and other sourcing, will post when I’m done but it will definitely be about a week. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if someone experienced tells me that it is possible, I would withdraw my nomination and wait something like one month, if in one month I don't see real changes I would nominate it again. @Gleeanon409: the article itself, at the moment, is a mess and more than half of it needs to be deleted. As I told you more than once it is pointless to add 1 MLN useless information just to have in the sourcing one more interview or one more article with a passing mention. Still, if you need more time, and it is technically possible for me to withdraw my nomination to nominate it again (if still needed) in one month, I am fine with it. but please, try to involve someone experienced to help you out. I will be happy to give you advice and help you but you need to listen to other people. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could the protagonists here agree with this being moved to draft space where it can be developed and sourced before being moved back to main space? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a reason to do so. If this were at draft it would be accepted already; obviously notable person who never hired a press agent but has been mentioned across media for decades. Those who don’t care for the interviews will likely never be satisfied. But more are on the way, apparently how directors were covered in the gay press back then. And these are just the ones I’ve found. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you, rather than give us a long list including interviews, unreliable sources and passing mentions, identify just a few independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of Slater, per WP:THREE? It is well established that interviews are not independent and AVN is not reliable, so don't include them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger:, Once I’ve had a chance to see all the sources I’d be happy to do so. I have about twelve books to go, at least a few are promising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleeanon409 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, AVN has editorial oversight, is there a discussion you could link as to it being blankety unreliable? If I had known that I would never have used them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: what you don't get is that keeping adding article to the sources where the subject name appears one time or articles which are shorter than this comment makes the sources look very bad and if you will ever find something good enough to prove notability people might simply miss it because you killed it putting it in the middle of useless sources. AVN and Xbiz are reliable to prove things, it is questionable if they can prove notability. Even so, I once more again went through all the sources you added and gave a closer look to the AVN and Xbiz ones. seriously? they are either articles where the subject is barely mentioned once, lists of the winners of some porn prizes (porn prizes do not prove notability) and short description for his movies (very much likely advertising). Some of this sources are repeated (some one repeat the same source into different line to make the source list look longer). There are 3 articles where the subject is mentioned more than one time:
you are just not listening and you keep adding to the sources anything on internet that contains the subject's name and this is pretty much the opposite of what we need. We need two or three good sources(books about the subject, not books containing his name or independent, reliable and extended articles about the subject in a long period of time on main stream media (like national news papers). Your behavior makes everyone waste a lot of time. You make us go through a long list of nothing hopping that we will give up and make you have in in you in your way. In my country this is called obstructionism. Please, stop and try to be more collaborative. We offered you more time to go through your sources and learn what a good source is but you rejected our offer. Enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been rude and dismissive, and violated WP:AGF repeatedly, you can stop now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: if you are talking to me, please ping me or I might just miss your comment. I have AGF the first 10 times I spoke to you, and as a prove of that I always offered you my help in any way possible. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A metric ton of inflation from either bad sources or brief mentions. This is the kind of citation overkill one does to prop up non-notable biographies, esp in niche industries like porn. Zaathras (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 41 citations and only one of them, the GayVN Hall of Fame article, is an even remotely plausible secondary source with non-trivial coverage. Lots of notability claims, but most refer back to jdslater.com. The subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO and any other relevant SNG. As a final note, porn filmographies are generally discouraged, and the low-information citations for each film hurt the article rather than help it. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relative to the kind of non-notable popular culture crap that somehow never gets deleted (including non-notable female porn actress articles) this is actually not so bad. If an editor is committing to improving the sourcing give them the time they need. Acousmana (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: just to let you know, I am working to delete all the crap articles in the gay porn category, it takes some amount of work but it needed to be done. I don't nominate articles about dead people because i don't feel right about it. So, if you find crap articles just make some research to see if you can't find anything to prove notability and if you can go ahead and nominate it... let's get rid of the crap. if we want wikipedia to be considered reliable we need to get rid of anything that is not notable. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: This rationale is an appeal to WP:other crap exists. Since the Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines were tightened a year ago, there has been a general housecleaning involving both male and female porn performers. Yes, an editor is working to save the article, but the editor has bombarded it with dozens of low-quality citations that still haven't supported claims of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k:,@AlejandroLeloirRey: What is the current status of AVN as an RS across all adult industry related content? Can you point me to said "tightening" of notability and sourcing guidelines, whatever discussion there was, missed that, am interested. Thanks. Acousmana (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Industry/trade sources, Adult Video News is "generally reliable for adult industry news and movie reviews, though it does not indicate when an article is a press release." However, practical understanding here is that AVN is a promotional source. If an article shows any traits of being a press release, it probably is one. AVN's reliability was taken into account when the WP:PORNBIO secondary notability guideline was deprecated in March 2019. Porn performers no longer get a pass from the requirement for good secondary sources as proof of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
still delete I nominated this article but I am posting my opinion again as the article has changed a lot in this two weeks. this article had more than 12 years to be fixed and now it had another two more weeks. I think that the changing made in these two weeks have made this article worst. now it is a long boast based on what he said about himself, filled up with a ridiculously amount of insignificant details. But here the real point is that there is not even one single source that can prove even a bit of notability. we have an incredibly long list or irrelevant articles where his name appears only one time at the end along with other names, ridiculous filmographies of no importance, lists of porn awards nominees and articles where his name doesn't appear at all. Are we keeping any single article only because "who knows, may be one day someone can improve it and find a source to prove a notability that no one can see"?. if so let me know because i would like to write an article about my dogs, who knows one daya significant source might pop out. plus, here above all the books where the subject name appears have been discussed and in the source now there is any single article containing his name but still nothing pointing toward notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’m actively ignoring the walls of text from nom, which have fully derailed meaningful discussion. But @Phil Bridger: asked for THREE reliable sources to confer notability. It takes days to get book sources copies so I’ll post these now:
Bannon, Race (August 13, 2003). "Aural Sex". web.archive.org. Archived from the original on December 30, 2010. Retrieved 2020-06-15.
Bannon is an accomplished writer and likely expert on gay BDSM culture.
Karr, John F. (September 2003). "J.D. Slater - Mansize". Adult Video News. Archived from the original on April 6, 2010. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
Karr is also an accomplished writer/expert on gay male porn, his column Karrnal Knowledge has been running for years.
[Both the above are feature-length articles about Slater]
Burger, John Robert (1995). "AIDS and the Trade". One-handed histories : the eroto-politics of gay male video pornography. New York: The Haworth Press. pp. 78–83. ISBN 978-1-315-86373-3. OCLC 1148475934.
This delves into Slater’s thinking and dealings on safer-sex practices as an actor and director. Haworth Press is well respected.
you keep repeting yourself. First source: it would be of some (little) use if it wasn't from his own website. Second source: it's again from his own web site and is an interview. Third source: his name appears in less than 3 pages in a whole book, so no an estensive one, which after what you say are about his thinking about safe sex, so it is not even a cover of the subject. if you need more time I think it would be best to move this on your draft page and when you are done, if you proved notability, we can move it back. but you have already said no to this offer. I am sorry but I can't sign in now, I am AlejandroLeloirRey --87.11.211.120 (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your inaccurate disparaging comments are, again, noted. That the two articles are archived at his former website is irrelevant, of course he links them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging? lol. Being on his own website he could have manipulated the articles. I honestly don't think he did but still the fact that they are taken from his web site makes them unreliable. Plus, one is an interview and you were told by different contributors that interviews do not prove notability. how many times do you need to be told?. if the interview was on The New Yorker than maybe it was different. (I am AlejandroLeloirRey) --87.11.211.120 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are again violating WP:AGF by assuming because his former website archived the articles he also changed them. That’s ridiculous. And they are both articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
have you ever even read WP:AGf? it says we must assume that the editors of articles are in good faith if they make any mistake not that the subject was in good faith when he reported a fact about himself on his own media. my engish is not very good. but still, is good enough to recognize an interview and one of them is an interview(I am AlejandroLeloirRey)--87.11.211.120 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
, you may have missed the points at the top:
Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
exactly, "people who work on the project" I spoke about J. D. Slater and as far as I know he is not working on his own bio here. I said that he might have changed the articles some how before publishing it on his own webs site. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer. Nom started with 1.) subject has not won any awards; although porn awards are somewhat disregarded on Wikipedia, Slater has won both the top tier (Hall of Fame) awards easily seen here, and here, which should have been a first stop for someone “cleaning up” non-notable gay porn bios. 2.) They then cite basic clean-up issues violating Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. 3.) Calls for Speedy deletion. 4.) Never considers merging to Raging Stallion Studios, of which the subject is a co-founder and is the world’s largest gay porn production company.Within a few hours I identified 40+ potential sources and started improving the article. Nom, who has !voted twice, persists in disparaging every step of the way to where I felt bullied and harassed.Nom has repeatedly alleged that on the article subject’s *former* website he altered archived press articles, and interviews. It’s fairly obvious they have no intention of accepting my work as valid and in good faith.I still have more leads to run down, and book sources to secure, I will add them as they come in. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the reason why we all agree on deleting the article is that notability has not been proved. this is it. when we talk about cleaning up we mean deleting all the not notable porn actors that are on wikipedia because of deprecated rules. answer to 4) weird, because actually I offered you my help many times, I explained you in details what we needed to prove notability and I went through any single source you added explaining you exactly what was wrong with it and I told you more than once I was ready to withdraw my nomination the moment we found a source that proved notability. you have been offered more time but from one hand you refuse to move this article on your draft to work on it as long as you need and from the other hand you gave as a long list (another one) of books and Gene93k eplained you exactly why each of those books could not be used which makes look giving you more time a waste of time and energies. one last ting, speaking of helping you, almost as soon as you started working on the article I told you that you were going toward the wrong direction filling it up with useless info and trivial sources you refused to listen and judging by the delete comment (they tell what I told you than) the article had mine were very good advice. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t Gene93k who gave a flawed assessment of books they haven’t read ... and here again you’re arguing against using reliable sources you yourself couldn’t find, denied existed, disputed and condemned, etc., really it’s exhausting dealing with your walls of texts and harassment. Your “help” is keeping a healthy discussion from even taking place. This is now a good article despite your non-existent “help” and “offers of guidance”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2020 (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.
Non-notable band, not even one-hit wonders. Unreferenced since page started in 2012; no reliable sources or coverage that I can discover. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The article is very poorly "sourced" to a fan site and a Youtube video, none of them are acceptable. Never heard about them but I decided to looked them up. I found nothing reliable. I found some sites that wrote about this band but they did not look too reliable to me. The rest of the results were very minimal, they were not about the band, or if they were, these sites were unreliable like Discogs and Last.fm. The rest of them are either name checks or pages where the words "cygnet" and "ring" appear but that's it. I also looked up their only album and I found nothing besides the unreliable databases, retail sites (lots of them), blogs, download pages and trivial mentions. So no RS whatsoever imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as with political parties which don't have any evidence of notability, or only have one candidate in one election and then do nothing else and have no importance other than their existence, this is an article proving no importance or notability and should be deleted. Not all bands are notable just for existing. Not all political parties are either, as I'm sure the nominator of this article would agree. doktorbwordsdeeds 11:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional page, non-notable. --Micky (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2020 (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.
Clearly non-notable company. coverage are entirely press or promotional in nature in media. I am surprised it is still here after long tagging of COI. Light2021 (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following in the footsteps of MakeMyTrip, Travelguru was one of the first portals to make its presence felt in the Indian market. Launched in May 2005 by two Harvard graduates — Ashwin Damera and Jarad Fisher — Travelguru was initially just a business plan the duo had submitted at the Harvard School Business Plan Competition. The plan came in at second place, and Damera and Fisher decided to turn it into a full-fledged business. The vision was to be a one-stop shop for the Indian customer's need for air travel, hotel and car rentals arrangements. The Travelguru folks, it seemed, had cottoned on to the idea of showcasing hotels and associated services even before MakeMyTrip. However, a few months into the business, Fisher decided to exit the project and was replaced by Ganesh Rengaswamy. One way or the other, the transitions within the company inadvertently proved favourable for MakeMyTrip as the honour of being considered the pioneer in offering associated services along with travel bookings remains with them.
...
Realizing that the market for air travel was beginning to get cluttered, Travelguru shifted its energies to hotel bookings. The acquisition of New Jersey-based travel portal Desiya was another step in this direction. In 2009, Travelguru was acquired by Travelocity, and by June 2012 Yatra.com took oveer the company from Travelocity. The acquisition of Travelguru provided Yatra with Travelguru's inventory in hotels, thereby adding an additional 6,500 hotels in India and more than 70,000 hotels worldwide to their existing kitty. With this acquisition, Yatra became one of MakeMyTrip's strongest competitors.
Preserving the history under the redirect will allow editors to merge any sourced material to Yatra (company)#Acquisitions.
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.
Clearly non-notable coverage in media. this is just to promote this company and making some SEO advantages. It seems, This article is written by company's marketing influence. Light2021 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, this is just promotional and non-notable. --Micky (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of several dozens of new mattress companies, trying to disrupt the mattress market.Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with fails notable both general and corp.VVikingTalkEdits 22:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP and article's content promotional. Ugbedeg (talk) 7:48, 26 June 2020 (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.
Except coverage on Investment and typical marketing based Press coverages, there is nothing substantial found on news. It is too early for this venture to being encyclopedic notable. Light2021 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything related to significant coverage in reliable sources. The article might have been created for promotional purpose TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the article is in bad shape and is overtly promotional. That said, there is enough RS coverage of her work in data visualization. Aside from many mentions where she has illustrated or co-authored articles in good pubs, I fount SIGCOV in the Washington Post, Bloomberg News, The Week, Scientific American, Digital Arts online and an Italian source. These sources are all cases where an independent author in a good publication has decided to introduce her visualization work as one of the subjects of the article, rather than it just being there to illustrate something. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written by what I think is a good-faith participant in an education project [18] I suspect that the reason that it so promotional is that people read so much promotional language these days that they think that writing like that is "normal". I suppose it is. It's just not "encyclopedic". Anyway, the sources are there, so it's a Keep. Vexations (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added the publications listed above to the article, and I think it now passes GNG and CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Thank you everyone. I agree notability is now clear. Mccapra (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or move back to draft space without leaving a redirect in article space. This AFC creation has escaped too soon FiddleFaddle 12:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or no objection to delete if that is the consensus) Should not have got into mainspace; maybe WP:TOOSOON. No 'prejudice' to re-creation at some future date (by independent editors) if notability can be demonstrated. Eagleash (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Self-promotional and inherently problematic, but could still be a viable article if independent, reliable sources indicate notability. --Micky (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. Not enough significant roles in notable productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2020 (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.
Unnecessary list, should be merged with the main article as with most of the other categories, as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the independent category yields limited search results and little significant coverage and widespread impact. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The op is not arguing that the award is not notable, but argues to merge the content of this page into the parent page. He fails to acknowledge that this page is one of a set of 13 pages which if merged into the same article, would not only be a nightmare for reading, but also for editing, as the page length would be very long. This style of award pages is the norm on en.wiki when the award itself is notable. Some specific-awards might lack with sources, but looking at the Golden Reel Award pages and at this award specifically, it seems that it has sources from Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood reporter. I see nothing in this AfD that has cause for deletion - not notability for the award, for the specific articles or even a need to merge them all into a nightmare of an article. --Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article, one of a series of similar articles. Mccapra (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the ridiculous title is a consequence of Wikipedia not permitting subpages in mainspace. It is merely a cosequence of a workaround to a technical problem, so it is not surprising that search results don't come up with much if the whole thing is fed into google. SpinningSpark 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Unnecessary list" is not a valid reason for deletion. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gonnym makes a good point, merging would be unreadable, and the topic is notable. --Micky (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A consensus of editors find that the sources offered do not satisfy the requirements necessary for notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objection - I refer you to The New Yorker article cited[1]. It’s a long feature article, and given the speed with which the Kadzi green sign posted its nomination for deletion, I find it hard to believe that it was read with due consideration before that step was taken. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because this article is the most exceptional source cited in terms of demonstrating why Blumberg’s career and the company he co-founded, 10x Management, are both notable and remarkable - and thus worthy of deeper consideration by the Wikipedia community. The New Yorker is not a business publication but a cultural magazine with a longstanding worldwide reputation - it’s remarkable in itself that the magazine devoted a feature article to spotlighting a company in the tech world like 10x. The article documents a major shift in the realm of tech which the author argues is having a profound impact on our culture as a whole (key quote: “The world is being rebuilt in code.”) Virtually every issue she investigates can be cross-referenced with the other sources cited, which include articles, interviews and quotes by Blumberg about the shortage of tech talent and the resulting “tech wars”; gaps in education, business skills, and interpersonal skills among the very programmers who are rebuilding our world in code; pay inequity; and more. The New Yorker writer fact-checks her findings against opposing viewpoints, and circles back to how these viewpoints stand up on closer inspection of the 10x model. See for yourself, but in my book it’s clear that the writer characterized the solutions that 10x has come up with to address these issues as remarkable. I would think that the Wikipedia community would be especially well-placed to assess the achievements of an individual whose work has led to such breakthroughs in elevating the position of talented coders in our culture and workplace. I await a full assessment and welcome suggestions for improvement. User:kbaker121 —Preceding undated comment added 4:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kbaker121: How much did they pay you to write that? The source you have given seems very one sided, I would almost say it is an opinion piece from Lizzie Widdicombe of the New Yorker. Kadzi (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note You can clearly see this page is unambiguously advertising for these '10x' companies as well, just look at the direct links in the opening paragraph Kadzi (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Kadzi: To reiterate - I welcome suggestions for improvement. Do you have any? User:kbaker121 21:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 06:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article satisfies the criteria for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Most importantly, the article cites several reliable secondary sources including several high quality sources of direct relevance to the person’s notability in Forbes, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Bloomberg, CNBC, and the BBC. The article also cites a co-authored book published by HarperCollins as well as four articles written by the subject published in reputable outlets including the Harvard Business Review, Huffington Post, Nasdaq, and Talent Quarterly, along with TV appearances on CNBC, Bloomberg Television, and BBC News. It also satisfies the criteria for writing style and privacy concerns. User:kbaker121 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just picking out some of your examples, the Forbes article reads like an opinion piece written by a contributor (not forbes published), the BBC video is part of a bbc magazine not a news piece, and the self-published sources cannot be used to assert notability as they should be independent of the subject which those are not. This person to me has no notability. The whole page read likes an advertisement from a non neutral point of view. Kadzi (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have made it abundantly clear that, in your opinion, the subject has no notability. But the evidence you have provided does not hold up.
The author of the Forbes article referenced (more than one article is cited, I had expected each to have been given due consideration before any consequential decision was made) is Jon Younger. Among many other achievements, Younger is the co-author of the book “Agile Talent”, and discusses some of the book's concepts in a 2016 article for the Harvard Business Review[2]. The article opens with the sentence “We see big changes ahead in performance management”. That is an opinion, but one that is based on Younger’s experience (detailed in the bio linked to above as well as at the foot of the HBR article) and which focuses on the rapidly growing importance of freelancers in the business world. This is the man who called Rishon Blumberg an early mentor. The opinions of Younger, Blumberg and others are clearly of value to the business community, otherwise they would not have been invited to provide articles and perspectives to such high-quality media outlets.
I’d also like to challenge your implied assumptions about the status of Forbes contributors. In 2018, Forbes’ chief content officer and editor wrote an article entitled “Why Forbes Is Investing Big Money In Its Contributor Network”[3] in which he states “More than seven years in [after introducing the Forbes contributor network], we’re strengthening the contributor platform, implementing several important changes that reinforce quality content, our commitment to contributors and our goal for our expanding full-time newsroom”. He then outlines a new policy of having paid contracts for every contributor, increasing the pay rates for contributors, and introducing new perks for contributors. Even if the articles cited in the article were technically “not forbes published” (sic), not only does this new policy demonstrate the increasingly high value Forbes has been placing on its contributors (note the mention of some contributors who had been paid over $200k per year), but substantiates Younger's opinions - which were formed while being mentored by Blumberg - that freelancers make vitally important contributions to business success, yet this only gained wide recognition in the business world years after those opinions had been expressed.
Regarding the BBC source, the link I provided goes to a page with the clear title "News". Immediately below the video there is a text link that says “Why you can trust BBC News”. The only mention of the word “magazine” I could find was in the URL, where it appears as a subcategory (“www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine", which does not itself link to an active page). All of which provides strong (if not overwhelming) evidence that it is indeed a news site - and that the average Wikipedia user would likely come to the same conclusion (as would the tens of millions of people across the globe who watch or listen to BBC News virtually every day, and for whom the BBC is virtually synonymous with high quality news - including me, who grew up and started my career in England watching the 9 o'clock news on BBC1 and listening to it on Radio 4 and on the World Service).
Regarding the self-published sources, you have once again made it patently clear that, in your opinion, these are unacceptable additions. Yet according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, they are indeed acceptable. To quote from the relevant section on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page: “Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (my bold). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control (my bold).”
Finally, I propose that any actionable opinion must explain how the subject's book deal with HarperCollins - one of the Big Five English-language publishing houses - does not establish notability when considered alongside the subject's other achievements.
I look forward to a broader perspective being brought by additional members of the Wikipedia community. User:kbaker121 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with WP:WALLOFTEXT, I am making no further comment as I have put my case forward. Kadzi (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been giving some more thought to Dr. Kadzi's claim above that the BBC webpage linked to in the article was a magazine and not a news site. The only plausible explanation I can come up with, after having a closer look as described above, is that Dr. Kadzi read the URL and not the article. Dr. Kadzi has said he is making no further comment. Can someone clarify? Does Wikipedia categorize citations on the basis of words included as subcategories in URLs or through an assessment of the target site itself? More importantly, how thoroughly does an AfD designation need to be conducted in order to meet the standards of the Wikipedia community? I respect those standards and have been abiding by them for a decade now. For example, I have freely contributed to the Almeida Theatre page both under my current user name and under TrillionsinBaikal. For all the reasons outlined above, I am left with little confidence that Dr. Kadzi has fairly applied those standards in this instance. User:kbaker121 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be really useful if the creator of this article stopped posting to allow more uninvolved editors to chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 07:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure PR page written by an admitted paid contributor. Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this page needs to take account of the principle, "the lady doth protest too much". If it takes so many words to defend this page then people will come to the conclusion that it can't be notable. We get that you probably won't get paid if this is deleted, but that is not among our notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — if you have to pay someone to create an article for you that per se is indicative of the obvious. Anyways, subject of the article fails to meet our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The consensus is clear here... the only person defending this is the creator of the article. --Micky (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom./consensus -Hatchens (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of points of clarification. 1) I've been paid my entire career to write mission-related grant proposals for non-profits. This is the first time I've been accused of a conflict of interest for being paid for a mission-related writing project i.e. to advance Wikipedia's mission. 2) The key issue here is the notability threshold. My central thesis is that the work of Blumberg and 10x have uniquely disrupted the way our data, which is now more valuable than oil, is handled by elevating that to a status akin to that of an art form - and that our world is all that much better for it. User:kbaker121 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There appears to be a policy-based consensus amongst editors that the sources in the article sufficiently demonstrate that the subject of the article meets the relevant special notability guideline, and should therefore be considered notable. (non-admin closure)Jack Frost (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reason for deletion of this page. If you find some probelms in this page, then you can improve this page but please don't delete this page.
Kaitudi (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I had spent lot of time in creating and editing this page Iqbal Azad. If you find some faults then you can improve this page. But please don't delete this page.
Kaitudi (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Beg you all to save this page from deletion.
Kaitudi (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remove this Afd template.
Kaitudi (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not permitted, you have to let this discussion run for a week or so and see what the consensus of other editors is, whether it should be kept or deleted. I would also suggest you have a read of WP:OWN. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had read the general guidelines of notability and I had found that this article is suitable with notability guidelines and should not be deleted.
Kaitudi (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:User:Kaitudi has been carrying out a campaign of WP:CANVAS to try to save this article from AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Indian actor Iqbal Azad. He has done significant roles in television shows which you can see in the references of this page. And He is also create a large fanbase by doing serials like Nadaniyaan, Tedi Medi Family and Bepannah etc. That's why it meets WP:ENT. If you don't believe you can see references of this page Iqbal Azad. And by these points, this page can't be deleted.
Kaitudi (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for WP:CANVASS. I really did not want to do that. This page should not be deleted on the basis of my above comment which meets WP:ENT.
Kaitudi (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: your constant posting here makes you look like you have an WP:OWN issue and is not helping this discussion. The more you keep posting entreaties here, the greater the chances this will get deleted. You need to just make your point once and let others assess the article and make their own recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR of having multiple significant roles in notable productions. He has two main cast roles in national Indian television series and a recurring role in another as confirmed by reliable sources so he deserves a Wikipedia article in my view. Just to note that this article is on my watchlist so I would have commented here regardless of canvassing issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NACTOR, as Atlantic306 says. It does seem that Kaitudi was too assertive in defense of this page, but their point is a good one — the nominator has given no real rationale for deletion here. There are 16 sources on the article. Why are they not good enough? The six-word nomination statement offers no explanation. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 07:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of the sources cited on the page, almost all of them are short articles announcing/in reference to casting decisions, and may be considered trivial coverage per WP:BASIC. Perhaps there is more substantial and in-depth coverage by non-English language sources that could be added to establish notability? --17jiangz1 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In total the short dedicated articles amount to substantial coverage that proves criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR is passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. Creator of the article needs to read Wikipedia policies before responding to AfDs. --Micky (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is consensus to delete as the provided that the sources presented do not qualify this person for an article. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject falls well short of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, and does not meet WP:BASIC. The first two sections below consist of a source summary per the present version of the article (diff):
References section - Six of the sources are primary, which are not usable to establish notability. The remaining four (reliable) sources consist of:
[19] - A single sentence stating, "Elders Vinson, Teixeira and Godoy will replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins and Juan A. Uceda effective Aug. 1."
[20] - an extremely minor mention, "...and in comments from Elder Juan A. Uceda, of the Seventy" along with a quotation, "“A moment of prayer is a very, very sacred moment,” Uceda said."
[21] - Very brief minor passing mentions, consisting of a total of three sentences.
[22] - A two-sentence announcement and fleeting proclamations from the subject, with sermon-like opinion.
Further reading section - Of the six sources present, five are primary and only one is independent, and that source ([23]) only provides a single passing mention, "A class on preparing for temple marriage and group testimony meeting concluded the day along with words of inspiration from Juan Uceda, formerly an Area Seventy in Peru who now serves in the stake presidency in Caldwell, NJ."
Source searches are providing the same, name checks, fleeting passing mentions and not much else. For example:
None of these sources provide in-depth, significant coverage about the subject whatsoever. It's all very meager routine coverage, announcements and quotations/sermon-like content. As such, per Wikipedia's deletion policy, this article should be deleted. North America1000 12:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) North America1000 12:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasoning as already discussed for Julio E. Davila. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to the above there is actually coverage that is unquestionably 3rd party, indepdent, secondary and significant all at once such as the Salt Lake Tribune article. The sum total of the coverage is a clear indication of notability. Cnsidering the level of covaeage we actually have on many of the Catholic bishops we have articles on, often just one listing from a directory blog, the fact that these articles on Area Presidents in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a postion at least as significant as a atholic bishop, get nominated for deletion when they have multiple indepth articles as sources some of which are cases of significant, 3rd party indepdent secondary source coverage, looks very much like a case of animus motivating the nominations. I also see no evidence that people have scoured Spanish-language sources either in Peru where Uceda was first a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or in Central America where he is currently a leader, for potential sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is an article from the Deseret News, it is not from the Church News, it is written by Tad Walch. This nomination is built on the false assumption that Tad Walch becomes a non-secondary source because of who his employer is. He is a legitimate journalist and this attempt to treat his intentionally written article in a major regional publication as other than an indepdent, 3rd party reliable source is just out of line. This nomination is built on a false creation of equivalency etween ownership and editorial control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Actually, I included the Deseret News source in my source analysis atop. Notice how I worded in the nomination, "The remaining four sources consist of...", in the context of first presenting the primary sources. Then, directly below that is my synopsis of the Walsh source, which consists of the following single sentence regarding the subject:
Elders Vinson, Teixeira and Godoy will replace Elders Craig C. Christensen, Lynn G. Robbins and Juan A. Uceda effective Aug. 1."
So, no, you are incorrect, I have not disregarded the Deseret News source, not at all. Rather, I included it in my analysis of the "remaining" sources, meaning non-primary. Also, this is not significant coverage, not even near. To avoid further potential confusion, I have added "(reliable)" to my nomination (diff). Sorry, but your analysis of my nomination directly above regarding the Deseret News source is entirely incorrect, and extremely assumptive. North America1000 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if we accept the unacceptable exclusion of the Deseret News the article has 2 sources that are clearly from indepdent, 3rd party sources and provide enough coverage of Uceda to justify an article. Besides the Salt Lake Tribune article I mentioned above there is an article from the Provo Daily Herald. These are both significant regional newspapers that are indepdently owned and operated that there is no way to consider in any way other than indepdent from Uceda. This is clearly enough to meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two more sources on Uceda from indepdent, 3rd party secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, what's missing is actual WP:SIGCOV. We need more than a sentence or two, or quotes, or articles where Uceda is obviously the source (e.g., the one about his speech at the opening of the Temple where comments form the newspaper is interspersed with quotes from his speech). FOARP (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Additional source analysis, per the two sources added to the article (diff, diff).
[27] - A verbatim quotation from a news release from the LDS Church (link), where the subject is talking about another person:
“Elder Soares has been opening many doors for us,” Peruvian general authority Seventy Juan A. Uceda said in a news release. “Some of our presidents know us a little bit. Once Elder Soares is there and talks to them about what we are, what we are doing for the country, the people, the society, there’s a different attitude, and I feel that.”
[28] - Two sentences about the subject, consisting of an announcement and the subject's personal views, that he's happy that a temple construction has commenced:
Presiding over the ceremony was Elder Juan A. Uceda of the Quorum of the Seventy and president of the South America Northwest Area Presidency of the LDS Church.
"Heaven rejoices because we are starting to build a temple," Elder Uceda said. "There are no coincidences in the time of the Lord. This groundbreaking ceremony coincides with the 50th anniversary of the establishment on the church in Colombia."
Sorry, but none of this comprises significant coverageabout this subject. North America1000 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 07:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough coverage of this to demonstrate notability. --Micky (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below is a summarized table of available sources that are not primary. I find myself in agreement with FOARP, where they state above, "what's missing is actual WP:SIGCOV. We need more than a sentence or two, or quotes, or articles where Uceda is obviously the source...". Myself, I get the feeling that folks may be seeing all the links and saying, "Wow, look at all that coverage" to justify keep !votes such as "there's enough out there" and "I see enough", but could potentially be ignoring what is actually stated within the articles, which really isn't much. None of the coverage provides significant coverage, not in the slightest. The subject continues to fail WP:BASIC, and the article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, because secondary sources are providing insufficient biographical information about the subject. North America1000 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lifted and printed verbatim from a LDS church news release (link).
No. Short quotations, all about another person.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above charat takes a far too strict view of what is substantial coverage. Considering how many articles we have on Catholic bishops with the only sourcing being a directory style blog, as in one source on the article from the directory style blog, the fact that Ucade who has been preaident of three areas, a position roughly equavalanet to a Catholic bishop by a whole slew of considerations, gets nominated when we have so much coverage including two full fledged biographical articles, is not a sign of evaluating articles on the merits of their sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination is specifically about Juan A. Uceda, not another person or group of people, such as Catholic bishops (WP:WHATABOUTX). None of the available coverage in independent sources provide substantial coverage, including those found in WP:BEFORE searches. That's why the article qualifies for deletion, because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America1000 09:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1K's GNG analysis. If there are Catholic bishops who have articles but don't have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about them (and don't meet some SNG), that article should be nominated for discussion. We are not discussing some other article and some other person, but this article and this person. Since the subject lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about them, they should not have a Wikipedia article. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NA1K's GNG analysis. Clearly no SIGCOV here, but even the collection of mentions are very minor, and too brief to add up to an alternative to SIGCOV. Solid fail of GNG I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (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. There is not consensus about whether sources exist to establish the notability of this school independently of Reigate Grammar School. Given the length of discussion and its general tenor of the conversation I am closing as no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future, preferably after at least six months time. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The school has enough coverage in reliable sources to comply with WP:N. Also, as a school with its own staff and its own separate campus and character, it would significantly complicate the Reigate Grammar School page, which has a different address, headmaster, origin, date of foundation, age range, accreditation, and so on. All such details would need to be stated twice in the single infobox. Article begun today will continue to expand and will soon be longer than the RGS page. Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article seems to be developing well and it is clear that the school is sufficiently notable to be the subject of an article. DAHall (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reigate, where the school is already mentioned. Coverage is WP:MILL, inspection report and local media, and therefore not enough to take this primary school into notability. Tacyarg (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTacyarg, "WP:MILL" has a note at the top to say it is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Notability is defined at WP:N, and all that requires is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and have editorial integrity, it does not rule out local media or inspection reports. The purpose of the policy is not to make “run of the mill” subjects non-notable, it’s just to make sure that content can be verified from reliable sources. (By the way, I don’t agree that a choir school with exceptional standards is “run of the mill”, but it’s a moot point.) Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not for redirection. "Redirect to Reigate, where the school is already mentioned." What, one short sentence? Well, it's a mention of sorts, I suppose. Especially bearing in mind that the article is developing, I don't see any basis for clamping it under the guise of MILL. Let's not be precipitate. (Declaration of non-conflict of interest: I have no connection with the school other than having to drive past the near-suicidal bottleneck on the curve in the lane outside it when I lived in the UK.) SCHolar44🇦🇺💬
It’s very difficult to call a trade standards body ‘independent’ or ‘objective’. This is objectively a feeder school for RGS with a choir. Nothing notable in the slightest about it. If the choir was notable references to it would abound in the real WP:RS, the national dailies and the major online outlets. Quoting WP:MILL is entirely aPpropriate sait describes the article perfectly, essay or no. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ‘’’is’’’ policy though. This is a non-notable primary. Fob.schools (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It’s very difficult to call a trade standards body ‘independent’ or ‘objective’" -- sorry, I don't really understand that. Moving on to "Nothing notable in the slightest about it", however -- that sounds a bit absolute. I sense, perhaps, a certain fervour in your comments. I hope this doesn't descend into the edit-warring that you got into over Reigate Grammar School.
Is your reasoning that any school that's a feeder into another should not normally be sufficiently notable to qualify for an article in Wikipedia? I still believe it would be a good idea to leave some time for the article to grow. SCHolar44🇦🇺💬
What edit-warring am I supposed to have been engaged in on RGS? As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES any feeder school is by default assumed to be non-notable. It’s up to contributors to prove otherwise. The ISI is a trade body for Independent schools that conducts inspections. Despite its name, it’s anything but independent. It’s paid for (barely) by the schools themselves, and needs to keep its funding secure to keep going. A real Conflict of Interest. Fob.schools (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Fob.schools#Reigate Grammar School: "I have closed the report you placed at WP:RFPP. I have to advise you that the IP(s) were editing in good faith, as they backed up their evidence for why the school should be a "Public school" and not an "Independent school" with a source (even if you don't agree with it or think the source is insufficient). You reverted more than four times, so broke the three revert rule, but you have stopped. Be advised that had I seen the report this morning and acted it on it, you would have been blocked for edit warring."
I mentioned this because it appeared to me (forgive me please if I'm wrong) that you may still have a fervid opinion on this subject area. I do commend, as mentioned, leaving some time for the article to be further developed. SCHolar44🇦🇺💬
What fervid opinion might that be? Do elucidate? 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Fob.schools, the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) is not a “trade body”, it is a schools inspectorate working under licence from the Department for Education, monitored by Ofsted. The British government is satisfied with its reliability, and it is independent of the subject, with editorial integrity, as required by WP:N. You say “This is objectively a feeder school for RGS with a choir.” Yes, it is. “If the choir was notable references to it would abound in the real WP:RS, the national dailies and the major online outlets.“ (If you look at WP:RS, you will not find anything remotely like your definition there.) The article is not about a choir. As it happens, there are references to the school in national newspapers, but they are quite trivial, exactly as with almost all other schools. WP:MILL can be quoted, but it is just opinion, and it contradicts WP:N, which is policy. “Nothing notable in the slightest about it.” You seem to be using “notable” to mean nationally important. We can agree the school is not that, but it complies with WP:N. Your logic would remove almost every school from Wikipedia, now that secondary schools are not to be treated as inherently notable. Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To remove every school from WP would require an amazing amount of effort and dedication, certainly not something I have in my locker, so lets not overdramatise the issue. The requirment of WP:N is to have 'significant coverage' from 'reliable', 'secondary' sources. This article is, in the main, self-sourced. The local news coverage is by and large created from school press releases, which is why they are not considered reliable. With regard to ISI, you say potato, I say potato. It IS a trade body. We go back to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Primary schools are generally not notable. To get over that hurdle, the article needs to cross a significant threshold, and this doesn't. It is not notable. I can find similar coverage for just about every primary school in England. To turn your argument on it's head, you seem to want every school to have it's own article. Fob.schools (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fob.schools, you are entitled to your opinion, but all the sources comply with the requirement in WP:N to be independent of the subject, with editorial integrity. Most schools are not covered in any reliable sources focussing on choral education, as this one is, or indeed in any sources at the national level focussing on anything, but it’s a moot point, as the policy is not about importance. No one has suggested that every school should have its own article, but if we got to the point where all schools could comply with WP:N then there would be no reason why not. So far as I know, you are not firing at any other similar schools, please see List of choir schools and say how many you think should be deleted. But please do notify me of any new Afds. Moonraker (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial integrity? On blogs and local newspapers? gimme a break. Fob.schools (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No blogs. Local papers have editors. Moonraker (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 07:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fob's arguments above are spot on. This isn't a notable subject. However, per WP:ATD and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, redirect to the grammar school seems best. And Moonraker, your DYK nomination for this article is a crock. Are you simply ignorant of what a directory is? All the information in a directory is provided by the school and it isn't in any way a reliable independent source. A claim of uniqueness absolutely requires reliable independent secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not the relevant policy, that refers to WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I see your point about school directories, but they have editorial integrity and are independent of the schools, much the same information appears year after year, and any factual errors are soon pointed out and corrected. There is no claim of uniqueness, only a statement of fact which can hardly be disputed, but I have added a second source for it. Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a policy, it’s a summary of what happens at AfD and is therefore a good indication of how the community implements policy. So it is entirely relevant. School directories do not by default have editorial integrity. They need to be shown to have integrity. See WP:RS. Fob.schools (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fob.schools, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not exactly a summary of what happens at AfD and it does not help during one. What is at issue is simply whether the article complies with WP:N. You say “See WP:RS“, and that is okay, it is very relevant to how many of the sources are RS. You may be relying on the definition here. There is nothing in that about school directories, but it says it matters who the writers and publishers are. I see nothing wrong with the publishers. If you could show that the whole of each entry in a particular book is written on behalf of the schools, and not edited for the publisher, then you could persuade us all that it was not a RS. In this case, that would still leave dozens of sources unchallenged. School directories are relied on in many WP school articles, and I do not think they should be driven out of WP, but I would agree that an article sourced only from school directories could be struggling with WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is. It is a summary of the common outcomes at WP:AFD in relation to schools. It’s part of an explanatory article for the deletion policy that covers most common AfD scenarios. The fact that these directories are used in other school articles is irrelevant. If you want an analysis of each and every ref, I’ll do it, just for you, but to start you off, the editorial policy of the first ref - muddy stilletos - is that they will accept freebies to review stuff - it’s a blog which exists For the purpose of getting free stuff for the author. Did she get a free term/year for her child for writing the rather long review of the school, currently referenced 6 times in the article? You say that the school is notable for its choir(s?) yet most of the references relating to the choirs are quite old. Maybe it was notable some years ago? If it still is I would expect a lot of relatively recent refs saying so. If they exist, they don’t seem to be used in the article. I could go on. 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
On muddystilettos, you paint a dark picture, but we can read about it on thegoodwebguide.co.uk here. The operator, Hero Brown, is an experienced journalist who has been a national magazine editor, and the article says muddystilettos is “the most influential lifestyle site in the UK for women living outside London. Her website covers everything from eating out, beauty, fashion and travel in nineteen counties and is compiled by a team of national journalists; each editor covering the county in which she lives.” That adds some weight under the WP:RS definition. Moonraker (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DAILYMAIL is undoubtedly influential, but that doesn’t make it a reliable source. In fact the opposite.Fob.schools (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that muddystilettos is influential, but that it has experienced writers and a professional editor. The Daily Mail is a red herring. Moonraker (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Even with experienced editors and writers (i.e. the Daily Fail) a publication is not automatically deemed to be a reliable source. When they have an editorial policy that says "Of course we'll be independent if you give us freebies" they are probably not reliable narrators on the subjects of their writings. Fob.schools (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a commercial operation, just as printed magazines are. Anyone interested in what it actually says about accepting paid advertising and free tickets for writing reviews can read it here. Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fob.schools, thank you for “Maybe it was notable some years ago?” You have come round to the idea that there are enough reliable sources for the school, and there are a lot. Your idea of notability fading away as time passes is new to me and is not mentioned anywhere in WP:N. The sources include some highly respectable books, such as The English Chorister: A History, and The Music Yearbook, plus The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, TES, The Guardian, Organists' Review, and so on. You have questioned the editorial integrity of the Surrey Mirror, Surrey Live, and other local papers and web sites, but I have not seen anyone supporting you on that. Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a commercial operation does not imply it is a reliable source.Fob.schools (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, and it doesn’t imply it isn’t. Moonraker (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am persuaded by Moonraker, though the rationale for deletion also gives me pause. I would suggest weak keep or redirect. --Micky (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:GNG in its own right though in all other circumstance we would delete a prep school. We have to consider each case individually. We can dismiss MERGE and REDIRECT. What makes it different is its interesting history, and changes of age intake over the year. Predominently, we are talking about a choir school that has tiptoed between state, church and independent sectors as the legal framework for schools changed in the 20th century. If it had always acted as a junior department to a feepaying independant school then it would be MERGE as per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG or delete. This is a keep, but I would want to add a few Ofsted or equivalent reports and cut out any promotional material. ClemRutter (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify that from its inception this school has been a private fee-paying school, and has not been organised under the auspices of any church, nor has it ever been part of the state sector. Fob.schools (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ClemRutter, the section headed "Inspection" is about the latest ISI report. Ofsted doesn’t inspect prep schools, but it monitors the work of the ISI, which works under a Department for Education license. You may think the "School day" section reads like promotional material? It is cited from the school web site and a non-school source and is only there as useful information. As it happens, I have no connection with the school. Moonraker (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker. Exactly. I am thinking ahead, so if this comes up again in another article we can cite the comments here and save ourselves a lot of time. It is easy to become very binary on the issues of selection (Kent) and state/private edeucation, and then to miss the essential items that all articles need. We have a nicely written article here, ISI is well used. My quibble comes in the use of Idependent school yearbook which is a prestigeous trade-rag in the section ==Curriculum and character==. It is a RS for names and stats but not so for POVs- The phrase ' choral excellence' rings alarm bells, and bragging about computer provision reads like promotion though the information is valid. Fob.schools I hear what you say and like the objections you have raised and will probably use them myself elsewhere but the WP:GNG has been passed- and the article is stronger than thousands of other ones, here and abroad. ClemRutter (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That distinction between names and stats and POVs is fair enough, ClemRutter. I have edited 'tradition of choral excellence' to 'tradition of choral singing', leaving that citation for now. Moonraker (talk)|
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.
Don't believe it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG; can't find any significant coverage; no major awards for her work; doesn't seem to have charted anywhere; happy days, LindsayHello 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated
LindsayHello Please forgive me for misdirected words.
I am adding many new and also current links to newspaper, radio, and online coverage of Ms Devigili's Career.
I look forward to updating Maria Devigili Wiki Page to suit the guidelines you will kindly help me resolve.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 06:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 07:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a complete rewrite of the history/story. Will follow up with reference updates and links cleaning. --- rxeno 03:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up - especially the many URLs throughout the article - however it has some potential if it can be tagged as needing work. --Micky (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up exposed url/links. Adding rewrites in the next days. Thank you for any input. --- rxeno 09:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A week old unregistered political party that is yet to contest an election. Not meeting WP:GNG currently. Maybe notable in the future but at the moment I doubt on the notability. Hitro talk 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an extremely fringe group with extreme fringe ideas and no sign of impact at this point. Things could change, but 1 week that does not include an actual election is not long enough to make a party notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an election in 3 months, and it will soon become apparent if it is registered, runs candidates, or gains significant media coverage. If it doesn't, then it can be deleted in the usual post-election cull.--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, we can delete it now, and not recreate it when they don't do any of those things. SpinningSpark 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and only allow it to be created if/when it shows some notability. --Micky (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks everyone for your comments. Based on this discussion it seems the main issue is WP:SUSTAINED, which requires that "notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time", which this has not. I'm not swayed by the idea that an subject can have an article because it might become notable. Hence I'm proposing delete on my own article. I'd add one more comment though; the article Tea Party New Zealand is in a very similar situation to this article; if this article is deleted, the Tea Party article should be considered as well. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A company with absolutely no indication of notability. All I could find was a few press release stories and some primary sources. Fails NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2020 (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.
Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. The sole source in the article is not reliable as per Wikipedia's standards, and my own source searches are only providing passing mentions. Not finding any significant biographical coverage for this subject in independent, reliable sources. North America1000 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Did not find any more sources on a Google search. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BEAMALEXANDER!,talk 05:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks anything even remotely approaching a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this band notable? I'm not sure. I don't think so actually. The sourcing is poor, but my Google search did not turn up better things either. Databases, name checks, concert sites, retail sites, trivial mentions and blogs. I found some sites that are about their album or an interview with them but they don't look too reliable. Therefore I sentence it to AfD: maybe someone else found something useful, I did not. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agreed this does not appear notable and search results are minimal. --Xannir (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BEAMALEXANDER!,talk 05:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator did a good job with WP:BEFORE and I also cannot find other sources. --Micky (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing beyond their website, gig details and ticket sales sites. Fails WP:NBAND. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Sources are not reliable - one is an interview, and two link archived pages from a website called evade.info, which in turn redirected me to a site called ruddybloodygoodactually.co.uk - a personal blog. BlueRiband► 01:13, 29 June 2020 (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.
GNG and NARTIST fail. The only significant claim to fame is one painting in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, which is a tiny bit suspect as he was also employed by the VMFA's museum school. Not to be confused with the Mixed-martial arts fighter. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Artist does not meet NARTIST nor GNG criteria for notability. No SIGCOV, only local-source blogs, calendar listings/press releases or or social media, none of which are not considered RS. One work in one local museum is not enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Subject fails WP:NPROF. Only one of the subject's works is in a permanent collection, so he fails WP:NARTIST. Some citations fail WP:SPS and using VFMA's Instagram is questionable although maybe allowable. I don't see WP:GNG here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --Micky (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable. Creator Mitzi.humphrey made quite a mess before she was blocked. This is part of it. --Lockley (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2020 (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 merged to Peninsula Business Services, which may be a very short-lived merge with another shift on the horizon. SPA !votes are given little weight due to their likely unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies for inclusion, and for failing to provide rationales for keeping the article that are in keeping with said policies. BD2412T 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
No significant change since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employsure. The article is still being used as a vehicle for promotion, and the subject still doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, at least as far as I could tell. My searches for usable sources were hampered by a significant amount of dross in the form of regurgitated press releases, paid articles, and trivial mentions. The history of spam and recreation at this article leads me to suggest salting if this discussion closes as delete. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the length of the legal controversies section, to ensure proportionality and avoid coatracking. Given the secondary sources that support the notoriety of the subject, (e.g. sydney morning herald, AFR, plumbers association, federal court statement of reasons) that mention the subject & its prosecutions throughout the article; I think deletion is no longer warranted here. Jack4576 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable company in Australia both for its widespread use in HR and small business (these guys underpin much of contract law and employment relationships in Australia, but also are highly notable for the high profile ACCC cases against them. I agree that the original version of the article with native advertising was not acceptable, but the newer version is an improvement. It could be further improved by ensuring all sources continue to be independent, but this not a good case for deletion. Zapdosmapdos123 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — Zapdosmapdos123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I note further if you look at Australian news there are a huge number of independent hits for them [[30]] there is coverage both asking for their opinions on major employment law rulings as a trusted source, but also extensive media coverage of the claims against them. While it is clear a proxy war of sorts has gone on, they are clearly have notability and coverage. Zapdosmapdos123 (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zapdosmapdos123, The first 10 articles in those search results are unavailable, a trivial mention, a press release, the same press release, another press release, native advertising written by the company, a promoted article written by the company, native advertising written by the company, a promoted article written by the company, and a press release, respectively. When I nominated the article, I went through four or five pages of that utter dross and found nothing of use. If you see any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources there, you're going to have to be more specific. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ACCC prosecution gives this company significant notability in Australia, especially as they are a significantly large company in the field of Labour Law. Instead of deleting the article, the article should be re-written to ensure that all claims are supported by sufficient secondary sources. Any WP:COATRACK issues can be addressed by incorporating info about the company from those secondary sources, to avoid the only content of the article being legal controversies. — Jack4576 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep - this company is well known in HR and small business circles in Australia. The current ACCC case (about alleged misrepresentations relating to government agencies) also makes them notable. Looks like substantial edits have been made to the page since the nomination to improve promotional/NPOV issues but the article can easily be improved to remove that if necessary. Deus et lex (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There’s enough there to demonstrate notability. Schwede66 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is definitely notable. Much info about their research and activities in the media (online, offline). They are often seen on TV.--68.197.4.12 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can any of the Keep !voters please provide links to their best THREE references that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? This isn't a !vote-counting exercise. Comments like "the company is well known" or "the current ACCC case makes them notable" or "the company is definitely notable" won't be considered unless you can back them up by referencing a secondary source. HighKing++ 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, quite a large number of low-edit contributors at this AfD. And one has been blocked already for socking. Welcome! I've looked at each of the references and like AntiCompositeNumber says above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following citations meet the criteria for establishing notability at the time of my comment: Number 15, from the Australian Financial Review; number 12, where the company is discussed as the subject of a court ruling; number 14, where a the company's conduct has been discussed in a press release; number 13, where the company is discussed in a union press release, also citation numbers 3 & 4. Jack4576 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack4576, what is required is described in my comment above. References need to be significant and need to discuss the company itself. The references above do not - most refer to complaints against the company or legal proceedings - these do not provide any in-depth information *on the company* and most have no "Independent Content" at all (see definition above). No.15 from Financial Review discusses the Fair Work Ombudsman "considering" an action against Employsure after complaints from members of the public that they believed a website operated by the company was an offical website of FWO. Not a single sentence in that article is "Independent Content" (see definition above) - the journalist is either quoting information provided by the FWO or quoting information provided by Employsure. This reference fails WP:ORGIND. No. 12 is a court judgement against Employsure for Unfair dismissal. The company is not discussed at all. It is not significant coverage - companies make court appearances every day, unfair dismissal claims are routine. Nor does the reference provide any in-depth information on the company. This reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 14 from FWO is the announcement on which No. 15 is based. Pretty much the same text on the FWO. Employsure is a mention-in-passing with no information *on the company*, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 13 is an article discussing legal proceedings involving Employsure and the result of such proceedings. There's no information about the company - indeed you'd have no idea what Employsure's business was after reading the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 3 from ACCC is another reference related to the topic first discussed in No. 15 and No. 12. It provides more detail on the legal complaint and the allegations but provides no information whatsoever on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference No. 4 is borked for me but a little digging shows it is also related to the FWO complains and other articles on that website fail for the same reasons as above - there's no information provided about the company itself and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find your arguments convincing. I now think Deletealready !voted above is appropriate given the concerns you have raised. Jack4576 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that much of what HighKing says is not correct. I accept that some of the sources in the article currently are not independent, but Employsure's work relates to running litigation, and some of its cases have been notable (particularly the ones involving themselves) so your claim that "companies make court appearances every day" doesn't stack up. The sources by the Financial Review are independent and just because they may quote a government agency doesn't mean they are not. The ACCC case in itself makes the company notable. There are other sources too not in the article. In my view, HighKing needs to stop reading something into sources that demonstrates his bias against the article. Yes, the article needs cleaning up but the company is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Deus et lex is saying holds merit. I think article may in fact be a Strong Keepalready !voted above. Employsure's litigation and legal action is unusually significant even for this type of company Jack4576 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets clarify the issue. First off, each reference needs to be examined separately, as a standalone article. Second, each reference must be significant, must contain in-depth information on the company, and must contain Independent Content. Picking one article and saying it is significant or saying it is Independent - but ignoring the fact that it doesn't contain in-depth information on the company - does not mean the reference meets the criteria for notability. It is a very simply process. For example, what "Independent Content" in the Financial Review article provides in-depth information on the company? The answer is none - the second half of the article relies entirely on information provided by the company. If you remove that information there's nothing left. In my view, it is ridiculous for Deus to say that experienced editors with thousands of edits at AfD is "not correct" or that editors are demonstrating bias against the article when a simpler explanation is that Deus, an inexperienced editor with <200 edits, just doesn't understand what is required. HighKing++ 12:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it ridiculous to say such a thing? You're reading something into the policy that isn't there. There's sufficient coverage outside of publications put out by Employsure itself to justify notability and it fits the standard. It's simple. It feels a bit like you are becoming a bush lawyer to justify something that isn't there. Deus et lex (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous for you to say that I'm reading something into the policy that isn't there when I'm clearly pointing you to exactly the part of the policy where it is stated and in my opinion it is the "interpretation" shared by most editors that regularly take part at AfDs involving WP:NCORP. It's also ridiculous that you make vague general statements about interpreting guidelines when you're a new editor with < 200 edits with no experience at AfDs. But lets assume you may be correct. If you want to gather support you should explain precisely why the interpretation I've put forward is incorrect. I've pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and sections such as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. They're not vague, they're easy to understand and I've explained in detail why each of the references fail the criteria. You, on the other hand, have made vague statement in response and you've don't nothing to address the flaws I've identified in the references other than repeating vague reasons such as there's "sufficient coverage". That isn't how AfD works. Be explicit. Explain. Discuss. Any idiot can make a bald statement without justifying it or referring to guidelines, what is needed is you explaining precisely why, say, the Financial Review reference meets the criteria. Point out which parts are "Independent Content" and contain "in-depth information". HighKing++ 15:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with your assessment of what independent coverage is. WP:SIGCOV says that "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". The Australian Financial Review article, for example, is not affiliated with Employsure or the ACCC (or anyone else). It's not a "promoted by" article (of which there are a few for Employsure that I have not referenced here because they are clearly not independent, but they are not referenced in the Wikipedia article either). Journalists use sources to put articles together, so quoting them does not mean the source is not independent. It is significant third-party coverage of the issue it discusses and it meets the criteria for significant coverage. You can't read anything further into the article than that. Deus et lex (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so a "merge/redirect" to the history section of its parent company Peninsula Business Services (that needs some expanding) is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per HighKing, Bori, and Nom. I have additionally done my own research and not one thing that I can find convinces me that this company meets the notability guideline for corporations or the GNG. Per Coolabahapple, it does possibly warrant being skinned and merged to Peninsula Business Services, however on the surface of it that organisation appears of somewhat dubious notability as well (although I have done not one bit of research beyond a glance at the current sources...). --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree this is a notable company. IMO they have received enough tertiary press cover based on the existing citations. Anecdotally I've heard of them a number of times so they are a well known brand in AU and NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran21 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Low quality deletion nomination which sits well outside the established geographic features notability guidance. Nick (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something about wikipedia policies, I don't think we need a 1-sentence encyclopedia entry for every single loch in existence. Wiki2008time (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. It’s a geographical feature about which more is known than just its name and location. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article sits within the gazetteer function of Wikipedia. I have also added a reference to the corresponding Gazetteer for Scotland article. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an encyclopedia. It is eminently notable and one in a series of articles, List of lochs of Scotland, still under development. The article is still development. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki2008time, I think it really a good thing to check the sources, when your Afd'ing an article. This loch here, has the remains of a bronze age hut circle village next to it.scope_creepTalk 08:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The sourcing already in the article clearly demonstrates a GNG pass; GEOLAND is a thing; a quick check on any search engine throws up plenty more sources. The fact that the article is short is no sort of deletion rationale. Suggest this be snow closed by the next passing admin. GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 19 June 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Google search does find some articles on him under news. Did nom follow WP:BEFORE? --Micky (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of results in Google News doesn't make him notable. Very few of those results are even about him, and none of them are from any major news sources. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack both consitent sources to pass GNG and also lack a clear claim that would actually add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. The only two citations are to the IMDB database and his company profile on his "Stuntpark" business. BlueRiband► 01:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I'm not sure what led the nominator to that conclusion. The article has a number of good sources, including "Moving body of work" from the Sydney Morning Herald, which reports on his career just prior to his winning a lifetime achievement award at the Australian Dance Awards. What is the rationale for delete? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Toughpigs, nom needs to do some WP:BEFORE when making AfDs. --Micky (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough. And there are many more references that could be brought to bear if needed. Boneymau (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 02:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shows up on the topos as a single building by the river, all the references to the place I can find are in federal documents concerning various apparently unconsummated projects in the area, using it as a reference point. No sign this was every anything but a place to cross the river. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fake news: Is not a community, can be prodded. Reywas92Talk 03:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. --Micky (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a locality, a spot on the map and not a community. Glendoremus (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a populated legally recognized place. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2020 (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.
No. A one-sentence passing mention.
