Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Dennis Kucinich. As suggested by the nom, only merge well-sourced noteworthy content. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Dennis Kucinich

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

Most of the content on this page is primary sourced text that appears to have been added around 2007-2010. Approximately half of the sources are Kucinich's old campaign website. Any well-sourced noteworthy content can be merged with Dennis Kucinich if it's already not on there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -Indy beetle (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is useful to Dennis Kucinich#Political positions, changing opinion after further thought.~~Keep~~ Reminding everyone that we have an entire Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2016, useful in on ongoing basis to folks revisiting 2016 for whatever reason. Also, I looked at the page and it is not "primary"; there is a lot of solid sourcing although it does need updating (true of all too many WP pages, but hardly a reason to delete.) And then there are articles like the one that ran just yesterday in Slate (magazine) Kucinich 2020: Dennis Kucinich lost in Ohio on Tuesday night, but his old platform is now the future of the Democratic Party], reminding us that he is ~~widely discussed as a contender for the Presidency in 2020.~~ Also WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widely discussed as a contender for 2020? No, in no way at all is that true, and your link doesn't show that at all. The man just lost a Democratic primary for a Governorship by more than 40 points. And it's absolutely true that half or so of the sources are primary sources. The rest are not primary sources, but they are of various degree of reliability. There's zero reason why the little good content that exists on this page can't be added to the Dennis Kucinich main page. As it stands, Political positions of Dennis Kucinich is just an unencyclopedic replica of his old campaign website. If the decision is to keep the page, editors should promptly go on to delete all unsourced and poorly sourced content (leaving little if anything). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listening harder to what you're saying, I looked at subheads Enivronmental, Gun, and Immigration, removed primary sources, and replaced one dead link with a reliable one. Certainly article can and should be cleaned up, but, as I said, there are some/many solid sources on the page. He did run for President twice. And this is an ordinary sort of page we keep for folks who have done that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to build his main article and if, by some miracle, he becomes a major presidential candidate or notable again to an extent where the main article becomes unwieldy in size that we re-create the 'pol positions of DK' article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2018 (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 that there is insufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability of the subject. Much of the content cannot be verified from reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 18:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Applepie

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

fails notability per WP:NMG, article appears to be the result of self-promotion more than anything else Acousmana (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even tough this artist is not huge, I think he is still a notable musician with proper references. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and possibly WP:TOOSOON. No sources verify any of the detail of the artist's birth or early life. The sources as they stand are a British PR blog, a link to a video interview by the artist's previous non-notable band talking about a song he wrote for the soundtrack to a barely notable German film, a festival listing, a dead link to a non-notable duo the artist plays in, and two references to a local newspaper in Regensburg in Germany, one of which is some blurb promoting his appearance playing a gig in a bar in town, and the other is about the non-notable local awards that Regensburg bestowed on seemingly every musician from the town, presumably as a publicity stunt. There's nothing to suggest that the artist has achieved anything genuinely notable in his career to date. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd (Australian rapper)

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

Can find no evidence of notability nor are there really references on this page. Because of the links that are present I chose not to WP:BLPPROD. Note that this is an Australian rapper which is different than Kidd (Danish rapper) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close the above titled page is a redirect to a disambiguation page. I believe the nom wants to list Kidd (Danish rapper)? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wanted to list the Australian rapper whose article was originally at the above page before you and Ansh666 started putting in redirects. I agree the Australian rapper should probably be a speedy close as an unsourced and likely autobiography of a non-notable person, but it's a bit difficult for other editors to make a decision if the AfD link now goes to a redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually undid the redirect but the Afd link was to an old one that was closed so I restored. I see now an editor has fixed the Afd link. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even Speedy delete. I cannot readily see anything that comes close to anywhere near sufficient IRS for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Also completely unsourced BLP at this time. (Editors need to stop messing procedurally with the article until this AfD runs its course too.) The article has been created by an SPA, and it would seem which has some knowledge of WP (so why no references at all?). Possible alternative and-or COI account? Aoziwe (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another option. Perhaps move back to DRAFT and let the editor fix it up if it can be referenced appropriately? Aoziwe (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and then restore redirect~~ - it'd been a stable {{r from partial disambiguation}} for a year before being converted to an article (different one from the first AfD, which was for the guy now at Kidd (Danish rapper)). The current target is plainly not notable and has some BLP issues to boot. ansh666 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Page has been moved, so no need for the second part. ansh 666 04:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero news sources found. See also Draft:KIDD (Rapper) and Draft:KIDD.--Auric talk 11:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved Draft:KIDD (Rapper) to Draft:Kidd (Australian rapper) so that the draft matches the name which it would be moved if it were published. Also, I redirected Draft:KIDD to Draft:Kidd (Australian rapper) since it was a duplicate draft. Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Auric. Deb (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have moved the nominated article to Kidd (Australian rapper) so that Kidd (rapper) can be reestablished as a redirect towards Kidd. In effect, I have also moved this AfD page to a matching title. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as described above. Can be closed as Delete WP:SNOW Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough for WP:MUSICBIO. Go for WP:SNOW.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO, unlikely to ever be notable musician. Dan arndt (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references induced. A Google news search does not bring up anything on him! Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 15 May 2018 (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. Notability of small places aside, the simple existence of this one cannot be reliably demonstrated, making this a particularly egregious failure of WP:V. ~ mazca ^talk 18:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damadem

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

Can't find any indication that this village exists, under the spelling Damadem, Damadam, Damedem, or Damedam. Checked the official Census search for all spellings, as well as the unofficial Census list.

Google Maps, although not always an RS, does not list any similarly-named locations in the area. As far as I can tell, there isn't a list of villages in Goa on the website for the state, and the Bardez district doesn't have a website.

The coordinates are completely unsourced, no clue where they came from.

Long story short, the whole thing fails WP:V and therefore can't be kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've never heard of one village being inside another (Tivim, which doesn't mention Damadem). Looks like the work of vandals, damn a 'dem. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Clarity ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted in several sources amd Gazaetteers as well as being mentioned in news accounts such as here. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, I'll suggest the same thing that everyone always suggests to you in every single AfD you participate in: please actually provide the "several" sources that you allege exist. Specifically, which official gazetteers mention Damadem as a populated place? Considering the official census of India fails to include it, I'd be interested to see which ones actually do. Also, I'll note that that news article you linked never mentions what Damadem is - all it says is that the arrested man lives at "Damadem, Thivim", which for all we know could mean it's the name of a very charming apartment block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Checked the district-census-handbook and that doesn't mention it.Period.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My best guess is that in a village as large as Tivim (1937 hectares), the locals might have allotted different local names to different areas.Damadem is one such sub-area.But, that doesn't pass NGEO and by a mile.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as just flat-out untrue. The coords point to a suburban neighborhood which isn't especially distinguishable from other parts of Tivim, and there is no St. Christopher's church there (there are two churches close by with other dedications). There is a St. Christopher's Tivim but it's in a different neighborhood. I'm having a hard time even with the word "village". I'll let others speak to the lack of official notice, but my problem is that this is failing the "it's not verifiable if it isn't true" test in a big way. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be closed as WP:SNOW. This obviously fails WP:GNG --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient sources available to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 18:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soli Colah

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

Fails GNG, cannot find any sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references included. Found one reference at http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/589439.html but I do not think that is enough to make this person notable. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 15 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anuroop B. S.

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

Fails WP:GNG, and the article reads like a resume. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning local squash competitions does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, TOOSOON. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NSPORT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:58, 15 May 2018 (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's a clear lack of community agreement over whether this crosses the line of being an unencyclopedic list of places. Further discussion as to inclusion criteria in the article may lead to a more informed decision in future. ~ mazca ^talk 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues

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

WP:NOTDIR. Very few of these entries would be eligible for articles or parts of articles. The central keep rationale of the previous two discussions was apparently "there are very few of them around", but this is clearly no longer the case! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Last AfD was over ten years ago standards have changed. Having IMAX accreditation does not make any venue inherently notable especially given there are hundreds of them across the world. This article recently came up as part of another similar discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dolby Cinema venues - removed for similar reasoning. Ajf773 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep twice discussed and twice closed as keep. Seems to be as clear of a case of WP:FORUMSHOP as there can be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what Forum Shopping is?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIR. As Ajf773 has noted, times have changed, and IMAX is not a rarity anymore. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and notable. A couple dozen have articles. Inclusion criteria can be adjusted. The Dolby article contained mainly redlinks. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see a couple dozen. I see a lot of city links, as well as some companies, museums and centers. There are a couple of entries like Scotiabank Theatre Toronto, which has 14 screens, one of which is IMax. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Category:IMAX venues. wumbolo ^^^ 08:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is clearly a very useful list to the public as the page views show an average of 1700 views a day and the category with 94 entries shows it is in a large part notable Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the worst keep arguments ever, see WP:POPULARPAGE--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Dolby accreditation in quite normal nowadays—in some parts of the world lacking Dolby would be the rare exception—IMAX is an investment that only few movie theatres can afford. The WP:NOTDIR problem here is apparent, but we should try to solve that per policy, see WP:DEL-CONTENT, which should leave us with a short little list of IMAX venues already found in Category:IMAX venues; and such lists we usually keep per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates. Sam Sailor 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR, we already have an appropriate category for this. With few exceptions, most of these are just movie theaters that are not otherwise notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POPULARPAGE says popularity may be linked to notability and if we shouldnt mention page views why are they linked at the top of every afd discussion, theyve certainly been quoted a lot at the portals rfc, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2018 (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 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Colja

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

I'm just not finding enough coverage (English or Slovenian) to justify a pass per WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Slovenian & French WP articles are translated versions of this one (or this is a translated version of one of them; whichever) and don't have any unique sources to use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sufficient reliable-source coverage. Hard to gauge exactly how much that 2002 Mirror magazine article actually contained, but it's a single source that's hard to verify, and we generally ask for multiple sources. ~ mazca ^talk 18:13, 16 May 2018 (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. If anybody wants to go ahead with the perplexing "merge" suggestion, here is the entire, unsourced, content: "Crooks is an American 2002 short film starring Jim Norton. Cast: Jim Norton (comedian) as Paul. Jessica Alexander as Carmela. Rozie Bacchi as Maggie Bagley". Sandstein 20:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crooks (2002 film)

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

I've been able to determine that this film exists, but that's pretty much it. There's no evidence of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and therefore this short film is not considered notable by Wikipedia's GNG standards. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Norton (comedian) who stars in the short. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Can you please point out what content you think is suitable for a merge? After all, the film is already mentioned in his article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Costars. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited, unreferenced names of two non-notable people? Feel free to add that to his article if you find a reliable source, and are able to create articles for both of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found to establish notability for this short film. Tinton5 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Face (Vance novel). (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Sai

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

Unreferenced (since December 2009), in-universe fancruft. WP:BEFORE didn’t find much. Could be redirected to The Face (Vance novel), though someone asked on the talk page whether it appears in other books of the Demon Princes series. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Face (Vance novel), the article about book that features the fictional planet. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Face (Vance novel), as above. (It doesn't appear in the other novels of the series, to answer the nomr's question).Eustachiusz (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Voice (franchise)#Versions. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice Österreich

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

Delete per Wikipedia:Too soon. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (franchise)#Versions until we have more than a 'it's been bought by ORF' announcement. Unlikely the host and judges are already set. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is it too soon? Clearly a notable subject. Has already received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. All the other country versions of the show have articles (apart from African versions). FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No airdate or confirmed hosts and judges (we don't have the ones in the article sourced at all). We don't usually keep for just a 'network has purchased reality format' announcement. It needs to be solid before it gets an article here. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect until there is adequate content and references. Deb (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Nate; TOOSOON Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. Bonham

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

Résumé-toned article, created by User:Mbhm1 and thus possibly an WP:AUTOBIO, about a person whose claims of notability are referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources. As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles (and doubly not entitled to create their Wikipedia article themselves) just because they exist, or because facts about their work can technically be referenced to the self-published websites and annual reports of the organizations and companies they worked for -- they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. But only two sources here, #4 and #5, actually represent media coverage, and even those two aren't about him as a subject, but just briefly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. This is not how you reference a businessperson as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and this is neither the tone nor the format that the article needs to follow -- and even if a better article about him can be properly referenced, Mark Bonham does not get to write it himself per our conflict of interest rules. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies has been tagged for notability since 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies. I'm seeing more coverage of the centre than of him. He has written a few books but there's not coverage of them - they are just included when his bio is being posted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clearly a PR/SEO exercise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies is now also at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG not enough coverage to pass. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (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 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Mai

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

Deleted article recreated. I do not have access to the deleted version, but the previous AFD comments describe the current article well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, who created the first AFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links that can be considered significant coverage in the article are all press releases or otherwise non-independent coverage. No evidence in article or in searches that this singer qualifies under WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:40, 8 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Adais

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

semi-related: jordan has no delsort lsit, will make in the morning. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has represented his country in one of the highest levels of international basketball and won a medal. Let's not further Wikipedia's systemic bias any further by seeking the deletion of accomplished athletes from non-English speaking countries.--TM 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no guideline that says a competitor in a FIBA continental tournament should be considered notable. You should be proving that this person meets GNG - which is a condition of the SSGs anyway - if you think that he does. Rikster2 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets gng. There is enough English coverage, but there is additional coverage in other languages. There seems to be an effort by this nominator to enforce regional and language WP:BIAS against Asian athletes, especially basketball players.Jacona (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation at the highest level of a major sport. SFB 22:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Funny to even nominate this guy, he played at the World Championship and so many other major international tournaments. Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played at the world championship, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, not to mention he played at the World Championships. Yet another absurd, biased, lack of WP:BEFORE nomination by this user. Smartyllama (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kanaan

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Not surprising, since he represents his national team. Google search for his name plus basketball returns over 15000. This seems to be part of an attempt to purge the encyclopedia of Asian basketball players.Jacona (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you please provide links to where the subject meets GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please provide some sort of evidence that you bothered to follow WP:BEFORE before twinkling up about a dozen AfD's of Asian athletes, (including 3 in an eight minute stretch) today? It doesn't take long for you to put a mass of articles on AfD, but each one eats up a bunch of time for other editors on AfD. Is your strategy to nominate so many articles in a short time so that the community doesn't have time to research them? If so, I think you're doing a good job, so long as the community puts up with this abuse. It takes me a lot longer than 8 minutes to in good faith determine whether any one of these articles meets gng in good faith, and you've made the determination on a batch. Did you look for non-English sources? Did you even read the sources on the first few google hits? hmmm. Jacona (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off course, you cannot answer the question at hand! Give me a break, this is far from abuse. In case you have not noticed, biographical articles by Bds69 have been mostly deleted after nomination. There is a clear lack of GNG to justify them. It doesn't take long to research if an article has GNG sources, especially if you are looking in batches of articles at one time (which is what I do for most of the time). The first few hits on this subject do not demonstrate GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How much time did you spend looking for non-English sources? Jacona (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check: As of this moment, Bds69 has created 336 pages, of which only 8 (2.4%) have been deleted.Jacona (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample Google results to demonstrate GNG, and undoubtedly many more foreign language ones. Seems like a clear case of WP:BIAS and a lack of WP:BEFORE to me. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources such as this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasim Mohamed

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets gng. There is enough English coverage, but there is lots and lots of coverage in other languages. There seems to be an effort by this nominator to enforce regional and language WP:BIAS against Asian athletes, especially basketball players.Jacona (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you please provide links to where the subject meets GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources to show GNG is met: [1] [2] [3] [4] PS he seems to go by Jassim Abdalla, so there ought to be a move. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the excellent research by Editorofthewiki and others. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Kozlov (basketball)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn to avoid wasting further community time. It appears my interpretation of WP:PROF#C1 was off of the community consensus. Thanks to all for the input (non-admin closure) Ajpolino (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Ferrari

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

Early-career researcher; appears to have just been granted tenure in the past year. Is on a few more-cited papers but is not the senior author on any. Doesn't yet meet WP:NPROF. It's just WP:TOOSOON for now. Ajpolino (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 17 years out from her Ph.D. is not "early-career". Being early in one's career is not in itself a reason for deletion. The "not senior author on any" claim is mistaken; she is first author on her second-most-cited paper, "Microcolony cultivation on a soil substrate membrane system selects for previously uncultured soil bacteria". She has attracted significant media attention including a story in Newsweek for her research on antarctic air-eating bacteria [5] [6] [7]; although this work is too new to have attracted many academic citations yet, I think it says something that it was published in Nature [8]; she is last author, and the media stories call her "senior author". And in general, her citation counts on Google Scholar look above threshold for WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rescued this from speedy in 2016 after creation as part of an editathon because I believed her citation record was sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and on a second look I hold to that opinion. The fascinating subsequent Nature paper on which she is corresponding author, per David Eppstein, tends to confirm that. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation record is adequate to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 for a highly cited field. WP:Prof does not need to be dumbed-down in order to include academics of this level. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Here is yet another popular source impressed and interested by her work. [9] This took 1 minute to find using Google. I think our readers deserve a chance to learn more about this researcher. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with David Eppstein and Xxanthippe that Ferrari's contributions satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nigel Hinton. Killiondude (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ties (Hinton novel)

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

Almost exclusively plot, only one source, seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nigel Hinton, I can't find any indication that the book is notable. ~ GB fan 20:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nigel Hinton. I too failed to find sources. Sam Sailor 08:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:46, 9 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristo Ivanov

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

At first glance the article seems well sourced to prove notability. A deeper dive at the refs, however, make the article look like an advertisement for the subject, as most of the sources are from the subject. I do not see notability here. Angryapathy (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ivanov held the chair as full professor of informatics at Umeå University form 1984 to 2002, thus meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. Evidently the article was written by someone with good knowledge about Ivanov's work, and it might benefit from a seperation of EFNs from refs. Looking at older revisions such as e.g. Special:PermaLink/275434417, some references may be resurrected. But all in all I do not see an article here tarnished with advocacy challenges. Sam Sailor 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From how I am reading it, he basically was a full professor. I think a chair and a "named chair" are different things, and not what WP:NACADEMIC #5 is referring to. Angryapathy (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In countries with so-called free higher education, aka government funded higher education, such as Sweeden as well as the other Nordic counties, endowements for and naming of professorships is uncommon if not altogether rare. Hence the full wording of WP:NACADEMIC: "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Sam Sailor 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sam Sailor. /Julle (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sam Sailor. clearly meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxical Sajid

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

This book does not appear to meet relevant notability guideline WP:NBOOK. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. the ISBN code is not working for me either, Saqib (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. no reliable independent sources found. - Mar11 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom.Deb (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --আফতাব (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any reliable sources either: there's Facebook, and there's Wikipedia. I strongly doubts this complies with WP:NBOOK. I don't understand note 3, which is supposed to source the claim that the book "became bestseller", and which states, in full: "Double Standard. Bangladesh: Maktabatul Azhar. 2017. p. 5." If the book is really a bestseller, I would have expected that fact to be sourceable to a reliable source somewhere on the internet. The publisher, Guardian Publications, smells like a vanity press to me, but I admit I can't read their website, [10]. Could a Bengali speaker help? Bishonen | talk 16:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Killiondude (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sextape (2018 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM - no notable actors, sources do not prove notability. Also an upcoming film, may fail WP:TOOSOON in that regard. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's playing at Cannes Film Festival. Notability is certainly not an issue. — Film Fan 22:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing quite a bit of coverage of the film, its director and debut at Cannes. Let's see what comes of it. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having non-notable actors in a film does not make the film itself non-notable. This has been selected to be screened at Cannes. Tomorrow, infact. Even if this was the only coverage of the film on the entire internet, I guarantee that there will be tons of reviews once it is screened at the festival. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added several more sources. As Lugnuts says, as soon as it has screened tomorrow and the distribution agreements are signed, there will be reviews to cite. There's really no need to rush an article like this off to AFD. Sam Sailor 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And sure enough, a review after the screening. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added McCarthy's review as well as Lisa Nesselson's. Can we call this a wrap, Kirbanzo? Sam Sailor 15:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as now has reliable sources reviews added to the article with more available so passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2018 (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. Should not have been relisted for a 4th time. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahed Sharif Khan

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

Created by a blocked user — Makhamakhi — who has been indefinitely blocked for creating inappropriate pages. Plus, the subject of the article isn't featured in any reliable, secondary sources.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 04:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very limited coverage. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and meeting wp:actor by having major roles in several notable productions. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable independent sources, such as? -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Arman ^(Talk) 04:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joyjatra and Oggatonama are two notable films where the subject was cast. While a Google search for his name in English gives only a handful results, in Bengali “শাহেদ শরীফ খান” hits 9,000+ results, several of them are discussion about the actor like the one here. Arman ^(Talk) 04:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful to note specifically what sources/movie roles are significant here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, for not meeting WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable actor. --আফতাব (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated at last relist it would be useful to note specifically what sources/movie roles are significant here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no notable Ghits, fails WP:NACTOR. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination is flawed, the subject is indeed featured in third party reliable sources. Two of the sources are from The Daily Star which is the largest circulated newspaper in Bangladesh and Dhaka Tribune is a print national newspaper of Bangladesh. So he has received coverage from third party reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter who created it for what purpose, the subject is notable. There are lots of refs in Bengali.

https://m.bdnews24.com/bn/detail/glitz/1002318? http://www.bhorerkagoj.net/online/2015/07/05/92179.php http://bm.thereport24.com/article/129727/index.html -Mar11 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per subatantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Numerpus major roles in TV and film. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2018 (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. An interesting discussion, but consensus is that GNG is not met, nor NSEASONS. Usually these discussions degenerate, but this has been a rational discussion with many salient points made on both sides, so kudos to the participants here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 New York Cosmos season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. General consensus is that clubs that don't play in a fully-professional league are not allowed to have a season article. Also this. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that the WP:N is an arbitrary guideline, rather than a rule. It's arbitrary because it is up to individual users to interpret the guideline and deem if articles are in compliance. Leyton Orient is competing in the Conference National League, a semi-pro English league outside the English Football League system. If the WP:N was a RULE, the page would not have been allowed to be created, and if it slipped through users filters, it would be up for deletion currently. Arbitrarily, users have deemed that Leyton Orient is more deserving than the New York Cosmos of a "season" article.

I have become aware of the reasoning for the WP:N guidelines since yesterday. It is to prevent people from creating articles for ANY "team". This article is not an article about a 30 year fantasy football league/team and it is not about a 13-year old travel soccer team in Suffolk County, New York. It's an article about a professional team playing (one) season in a semi-pro league. Due to the folding of a USSF sanctioned division two league, the team has chosen to play in another USSF sanctioned league. The article is also about a team that is competing in the premier domestic cup competition (U.S. Open Cup). The Cosmos are not competing in this competition as an NPSL team. They are competing under special consideration by the USSF, that they and their NASL counterparts are professional teams that have chosen to play in a lower league as they look to play in a new professional league for the 2019 season.

As a side note: During the telecast of the Boston City FC v Cosmos April 29th match; Boston City FC announcers repeatedly stated that the Cosmos are a professional team playing against a much weaker side. They "look forward to seeing how weaker teams (than Boston) do against the Cosmos".

Tychu9 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few things on this comment first. 1. the fact that the Leyton Orient article exists is not reason for this article to exist. 2. WP:FOOTYN has pretty general guidelines about notability, and professional teams playing against non-professional teams is usually not enough to establish notability. 3. Technically, NPSL is not officially sanctioned by USSF, they only sanction divisions 1-3 and NPSL is not one of them. 4. Competing in the domestic cup is not a justification for this article, or for any similar article for a team competing in the competition. 5. Technically it is the New York Cosmos "B" team that is competing, so the article title itself is off.

I think that the conversation surrounding notability for team seasons is one worth expanding upon, but I don't think this is the place to do it. For now, the inclination should go toward the consensus that these articles are not notable, and looking at the citations there's no clear evidence it is. Per GiantSnowman I'm inclined to vote delete, although I think seasons such as this are worth revisiting in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not pushing for the removal of Leyton Orient's page. What I am contending is that the existence of the Leyton Orient page shows that it is a guideline rather than a strict RULE. In fact I am pushing for the expansion of the guidelines to allow a "season" page for ANY team (in an organized pyramid team)that has an active fan base. I update the page as a hobby; and for many people, wikipedia is a valuable source of information for sports teams and their leagues. On my position of the WP:FOOTYN being a guideline rather than CODE; there shouldn't be a move to "look at expansion in future". It is not a code of baseball that needs to be voted on for consideration to change. But as a guideline; it is fluid and should be expanded or defined at any time. A RULE is not arbitrary. Either something fits or it doesn't fit. The article in question, was arbitrarily deemed out of compliance with a poorly defined guideline. What makes one article (Leyton Orient) compliant, while this one is out of compliance? Until that question is answered or the guideline is rigidly structured, this article is compliant. I vote keep.Tychu9 (Tychu9) 19:11, 1 May 2018

Comment if that's the case, this isn't the place to do it. This is an AfD, not a place to discuss changes to guidelines and policy. I am not 100% certain where you should propose those changes, but I know it isn't here. Also your argument is heavily reliant on the idea that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I recommend reading that first. Jay eyem (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines are important in maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. They can serve to keep content included, if an article meets the guidelines but is found distasteful by many. They can also bring to light articles created that clearly lack notability and are indefensible. Finally, the guidelines can lead to discussions such as this one about an article that some may see as falling short while others find notable. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not "hard and fast rules." "Guidelines are generally meant to be best practices." "Guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." It is for this reason that both the general notability guideline and the sports team seasons guideline define what is notable without saying that articles that fail to meet the criteria are automatically excluded from the encyclopedia. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the article should not be included. This is where reason and common sense come in. While it will usually be plainly obvious to most Wikipedians that an article that fails to meet the notability guidelines simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, in some cases, reason and common sense dictate otherwise. While the rebuttable presumption that an article should be excluded is rarely rebutted, in my opinion, the unique circumstances surrounding the 2018 Cosmos season create a convincing case that we should look beyond mere rote application of the guidelines.

If I have any concern about the notability of the subject of an article I am considering creating, I first consult the WikiProject that is most closely related to the article's content. WikiProject Football mentions that there are guidelines for the notability of players, teams and leagues. It is silent regarding guidelines for clubs' seasons. This surprises me, since there are many such articles. The club notability guideline says, "All teams that have played in the national cup...are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Since the Cosmos are participating in the 2018 U.S. Open Cup, it stands to reason that this element, which makes the team notable, also makes the article in which it will be discussed notable. If that element is so important that it alone can confer presumptive notability on a club, how could it not also confer automatic notability on a season during which it takes place? The Cosmos participation in the U.S. Open Cup should be discussed in prose in the article about the club's 2018 season. That is something which needs to be improved in the article, not a reason for it to be deleted. It is important to recognize that the Cosmos are not competing in the US Open Cup as an NPSL qualifier. Rather, the USSF is treating the team as one that plays in a fully professional league (like the NASL) and giving it an automatic entry to the tournament, despite the fact that the USSF decertified the NASL of which the Cosmos are a member club. If the USSF is treating the Cosmos in the same manner in which it treats teams in fully professional leagues, shouldn't Wikipedia consider doing so as well?

In the absence of clear guidance from WikiProject Football, we are left with the guideline for seasons of all sports teams, which says that articles for seasons can be created for teams in top professional leagues. If this rule were applied to association football articles without reason and common sense, 2017–18 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season or any other article about a team in a second-tier league would be a candidate for deletion, unless it met WP:GNG. Yet, in the context of association football clubs, I believe few Wikipedians would challenge the notability of the season of any club in a fully professional league (as mentioned above, even though that is not what the guideline says). Please do not misinterpret my point. I am not saying that since the Wanderers article appears in the encyclopedia even though it fails (or may fail, subject to WP:GNG,) the criteria, that leads to the conclusion that the 2018 Cosmos article also belongs in Wikipedia. What I am saying is that the notability guideline is not a rule that should be applied by rote. Rather, reason and common sense may sometimes result in a conclusion that departs from the notability guideline. That's how we end up with articles like 2016–17 Leyton Orient F.C. season.

Despite failing WP:NSEASONS, the 2018 Cosmos article appears to meet WP:GNG. NBC Sports reported on the Cosmos request to USSF to be included in the U.S. Open Cup. ESPN reported on the USSF granting the request. This clearly represents significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the Cosmos. It is reasonable to expect that more coverage is likely to ensue. The club currently has 16 players on its roster that meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for players. Many NPSL clubs have no such players, and the overwhelming majority appear to have fewer than five. Unlike most NPSL clubs that are just happy to appear in the U.S. Open Cup, the Cosmos expect to advance deep into the tournament and earn a match against an MLS team. The performance of a player such as Chris Wingert, who played 14 seasons in MLS can be expected to draw attention from that league's fans and to generate additional media coverage. Rafael Garcia played six seasons in MLS. The club conducts its affairs in a manner far above that of an NPSL club, and the media have paid attention. Wikipedians should use reason and common sense to do the same. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without trying to badger, I would like to once again point out that it is the "New York Cosmos B" team that is competing in the NPSL, not the "New York Cosmos". If nothing else, the article should at least be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Jay eyem (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coment I'm willing to concede that point IF it comes down to "moving it or NOTHING". But my reasoning (and some of the other supporters) for viewing 2018 as a Cosmos season and not Cosmos B is; There is no "A"team. So we can't technically have a "B" team. Jacksonville Armada is not treating it as their "B" squad. On their website they had the tagline "New Season, New League, New Look". Speaking as a fan, I believe that the reason why the NPSL and team is calling it the "B" team is the simple fact that the New York Cosmos B had already applied to be a member of the 2018 NPSL season well before the hiatus of the NASL season and first team. Another point is that, the simple majority of 2018 New York Cosmos "B" players signed with the club and were professional players from previous seasons. There are only 4-5 returning players from the 2017 Cosmos "B" campaign. Tychu9 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2018

Coment It is OR to speculate on why the Cosmos themselves continue to call their NPSL side "Cosmos B". The simple fact is that they do, and we should not confuse the issue by adopting a different style to everyone else.[11] SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Comment I agree that identifying the team as something other than Cosmos B is original research. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cannot consider the names or content of articles on Wikipedia through the lens of fans. In order to maintain neutrality in article titles, we should use a name derived from reliable sources where one is available. All reliable sources, including the organization's own website, are identifying this team as Cosmos B, not Cosmos. The reasons for that are not relevant. The fact that Cosmos fans regard the NPSL squad as something other than a "B" team could lead to the club being identified simply as "Cosmos" on the basis of this being a commonly recognizable name. However, when we consider the entire universe of Wikipedia users, only a small fraction are Cosmos fans. The rest of the users likely regard this as a "B" team, since that is what they see in every reliable source. Finally, using "B" in the article title distinguishes this article from an article about the organization's main club, which the organization says is on hiatus. This is preferable under WP:SMALLDETAILS. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant to address this point which had previously been made by Jay eyem, but I failed to do so, so I don't see resurrecting it as badgering. I do agree that the team is clearly identified in all original sources, including on its own website, as Cosmos B and not Cosmos. The article should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the organization has made it quite clear that it cancelled the 2018 season.[12] This content clearly refers to a different team within the same organization, New York Cosmos B. Even if the material is sufficiently notable, it does not belong on this page, and should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Move The article should be moved, but the content should not be deleted. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move I’ll be happy with that consensus. Tychu9 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Cosmos are a professional team in operation since 2011, with a viable ownership structure. The league in which they participated was involuntarily de-sanctioned (the North American Soccer League) on the basis of inconsistently-applied USSF PLS guidelines. The sanctioning body is currently undergoing litigation to determine the nature of its relationship with other leagues and whether or not its interests conflict with its role as impartial arbiter of standards. While this litigation is underway in Federal Court (as of 1 May 2018), it is relevant to question whether or not the decision to de-sanction the North American Soccer League met basic ethical standards. The initial finding of the Federal Court found that while there was not enough evidence (absent discovery) at this stage to meet the heightened involuntary injunction standards, there was certainly indication that legitimate questions existed as to the propriety of the USSF's decision-making process, their inconsistent behavior with other leagues. Judge Brodie indicated in her preliminary injunction motion ruling the NASL's claims would likely survive the USSF's follow-up motion to dismiss. In other words, a trial is likely to be granted. Without a final determination in this active litigation, it is premature to ascribe the USSF's decision as legitimate. The deliberation as to whether the New York Cosmos are a member of a professional league is very much still in flight.

Furthermore, on the basis of deciding whether the New York Cosmos itself are a professional soccer team/organization, it should be noted that they met all USSF's club-specific PLS requirements for a professional team.

As indicated above by Taxman1913, their participation in the United States premiere domestic tournament reflects the special temporary circumstances a number of viable club organizations (e.g., New York Cosmos, The Miami FC, Jacksonville Armada) associated with the NASL and meeting all club-specific USSF PLS guidelines for a professional team found themselves in at the beginning of the year. Their participation in the 2018 Lamar Hunt United States Open Cup was only possible through the direct sanctioning of the United States Soccer Federation.

Dream-king (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is pretty much word-for-word what you wrote at Talk:2018 New York Cosmos season and really does not address the notability concerns involved. Could you please follow the discussion a little more closely and offer a followup to explain these points? Jay eyem (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention it's editorializing and therefore both OR and highly-debatable. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Nominators Comment: You guys are making this harder than it should be. Look, the fact is that the Cosmos are not playing in a fully-professional league right now. They, or Cosmos B, are playing in the National Premier Soccer League, which is at best a semi-professional league, not a fully-professional league. Technically, it isn't even Cosmos playing in NPSL but the B team. Right now you guys will play in 1 US Open Cup game but that makes no difference. With all this, this article should be deleted. Simple as that. Leyton Orient arguably should be deleted too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do think we're talking about two separate issues. There seems to be a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. Perhaps the material should be moved to a different article, but that's a different discussion on notability. Delete this, create the new page, and we can debate it there. SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a consensus has formed that the content of the article is about Cosmos B and not the Cosmos. It is also clear that the article (no matter its title) fails WP:NSEASONS. However, articles posted on the websites of NBC Sports and ESPN clearly represent significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the club. It didn't take long to find these articles, and I suppose I could find more. Let's keep in mind that the team has only played one match. The guidelines at WP:NSPORTS are intended "to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline." They are not intended to supplant the general notability guidelines. The content of this article meets WP:GNG based on the coverage by NBC Sports and ESPN; such content simply needs to be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Anyone who is a proponent of deletion without moving needs to demonstrate why the content fails WP:GNG. So far, this has been glossed over and ignored. I would be delighted to read the opinions of the participants in this discussion who wish to address that issue. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, WP:NSEASONS. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this page doesn't have anything to do with the subject of its title. I also happen to think a hypothetical 2018 New York Cosmos B season fails WP:NSEASONS, but that's a separate discussion. SixFourThree (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Delete I maintain that the article still fails WP:NSEASONS and agree that a Cosmos B article would also fail NSEASONS. It could possibly meet WP:GNG but that hasn't been demonstrated yet: nearly all of the sources just discuss the signing of new players, which is routine coverage. The one that isn't about signing new players is about the decision for the team to join the Open Cup qualifying, but that doesn't do much to demonstrate the notability of this season. I think a lot of the keep arguments are effectively WP:INHERIT arguments, but one of the strongest arguments discusses the lack of guideline that the project itself uses. This is definitely worth discussing in the future, but especially based on the current sourcing I think deletion is the right option. Jay eyem (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and not enough there for WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NSEASONS and just about every other WP:GNG based reason. The professional Cosmos are not playing in 2018 (which is what this article is titled), the semi-pro Cosmos B are playing, but is not significantly covered in independent, widely distributed media. At best there are dedicated blogs to NPSL teams (such as this for the Cosmos in general). The closest this comes to meeting GNG is when the subject of the news article is the NASL team's non-operations and the mention that the B team is still playing like this ESPN article. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (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 length of the discussion disguises the fact that, in terms of headcount, there is a relatively clear consensus that this is not a useful article topic because of the disparate nature of the content assembled here. The article can be userfied if somebody does want to recycle some content in other articles. Sandstein 20:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of medicine

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

Fundamentally non-encyclopedia as it takes a broad vague concept that is not directly-referenced in good sources, and this necessitates the creation of a lot of synthetic editorial arguments based on a novel collection of sources. Some material may be salvageable to be used elsewhere, but this article is not viable. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The material should be inserted into relevant articles. Natureium (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page is well-sourced and mostly meets MEDRS, the only problem is it's too broad a topic and should be split up into other pages. It should be moved to a userpage or sandbox to preserve it until it's split into separate ideas. This current page could be a type of disambig page in the future. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split and delete - well-soured, but an essay. Split into other articles, but delete this one. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we WP:SPLIT it, then we can't delete it, because of license requirements. I would support a split and redirect to Medicine, which will preserve the attribution information for the copyrighted material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will go with that. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drastic violation of NPOV, and, by its very nature "critocisms of ...", not fixable. It's a conglomerate of issues wheich are treated elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (although the user who suggested that I write this article is a very experienced editor and also a strong opponent of CAM), so would someone please explain to me:

What's wrong about writing an article "Criticism of..."? A search shows many such articles on Wikipedia, e.g., Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Wikipedia.
Is it playing into the hands of CAM to admit that mainstream medicine is not perfect? If so, the NY Times is playing into CAM's hands with today's headline about prosecutors in the U.S. uncovering a massive kickback scheme by pharmaceutical companies to physicians for prescribing opioids.
What is wrong about an article having a broad topic? Doesn't Alternative medicine have a broad topic?
In what sense is my article an "essay"? Reading WP:Essays, I don't see the connection.
Exactly where does my article violate NPOV?
Where in WP:Splitting can we find the reason for suggesting splitting this article? I do see a place there where it's recommended that articles over 30 to 50 KB should be considered for splitting. My article is 19 KB; the article Alternative medicine is 260 KB. (I'm not suggesting splitting that article, though it does take an awfully long time to read through.)

Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a "criticism of mainstream medicine" is that it implies an "alternative", of which there is none. Much of the material you've added is decent, but it's an overly broad title, and quite a lot falls into "Criticism of the US health-care system" or "Criticism of for profit healthcare". There isn't a Criticism of physics or criticism of mathematics article. Carl Fredrik^talk 12:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I agree that the article would need to be rewritten to be less essay-like, to claim that there cannot be an article about "criticism of mainstream medicine" because there is no alternative is short-sighted. There are many reasonable criticisms of conventional medicine (if we take that to mean Western medicine) that don't suggest promoting things like homeopathy or astral surgery. The premise of the article is not flawed, although maybe the execution could be made more encyclopedic. ... discospinster _talk 13:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is that topic of "Criticism of medicine" does not exist in RS in the way the article wants to frame it. The most obvious source of "criticism of medicine" content would be fundamentalist religious sources which argue medical interventions thwart the will of god. At the nom says this is a synthetic topic which is why the article is built on original research with multiple failures of WP:V. It just ain't encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was titled "Criticisms of mainstream medicine" before it was moved to the title "Criticisms of medicine". There certainly are reliable sources that cover the topic of the original title if it is framed as criticisms of modern/Western medicine. ... discospinster _talk 13:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's RS (appropriate, secondary RS). The concept of "Western medicine" it in itself a fringe/ignorant concept. The original title was in fact "Shortcomings of mainstream medicine" which hints at a problematic agenda behind all this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article itself, which documents criticisms of methodology in medicine by professors John Ioannidis and Marcia Angell. And the section on women and minorities being excluded from clinical trials. And criticisms based on Nazi experiments and use of the knowledge that came from them. The concept of "Western medicine" is not at all a fringe/ignorant concept, unless you think the National Cancer Institute, Wharton, and Amherst College are fringe organizations. ... discospinster _talk 13:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That illustrates the problem nicely. Taking just your first point, the article text "Stanford University School of Medicine Professor John Ioannidis has sharply criticized the quality of published medical research, claiming that most published findings are false" is not verified by the source (which is primary), but is pure editorial/OR. Articles must be based on secondary sources. Even then Ioannidis is not writing a criticism "of medicine", but of the quality of published research. Is is WP:OR to frame it otherwise. And even if there are secondary sources covering Ioannidis' view, while they might usefully be worked into our Medical research article; putting them here is a POVNAMED article is a big NPOV problem as DGG observed above. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the issues are of scope and context. There are too many areas that the article attempts to cover, without any unifying concept or theme beyond "These are a bunch of negative things some people have said at various times about (modern) medicine." It's mostly a laundry list of complaints – some more useful than others – often raised by alternative medicine proponents, generally lumped together as a "modern medicine is bad, therefore my particular alternative nostrum must be better". Some of it deals with current issues; some with more historical problems. Some is very country-specific. Some deals with individual incidents of misconduct and scandals; some attempts to span all of medicine.

For example, the first section (financial barriers to access) is very U.S.-specific in its approach. It also applies to alternative medicine—one could argue even more so, since public and private health insurers are less likely to provide coverage for unproven (and disproven) CAM therapies.
The second section (inadequate therapeutic relationship with patients) is a backhanded compliment, in some regards—mainstream medicine is less appealing that alt-med because practitioners are often pressed for time (see preceding section on financial pressures), and so receive less benefit from the placebo effect than alt-med practitioners; despite this handicap, mainstream medicine still works better. Again, one should note that for patients willing to pay out of pocket for the privilege, one can buy access to more physician time and attention in mainstream medicine just as one does for alt-med.
The third section (conflicts of interest and faulty methodology) is interesting. As Alexbrn notes above, Ioannidis' conclusions apply to all scientific publishing, and have been criticized as sometimes overstated and sometimes missing the point. Alt-med practitioners have as much financial incentive to do sloppy research as mainstream researchers (if not more so). CAM advocates will point to a lack of CAM research in top-tier journals as evidence of bias; they won't recognize that it's usually because their studies just aren't very well conducted.
The fourth and fifth sections (opioid epidemic and list of scandals) pick out a handful of incidents and issues, and lay them broadly at the feet of all 'medicine'. The opioid issue is again presented from a very U.S.-specific angle, and it is a problem that was badly exacerbated by a number of U.S.-specific legal, cultural, and economic factors. Pulling out a couple of biomedical researchers who were found to have committed misconduct, and naming a couple of physicians who committed malpractice, is a weird sort of anecdotal evidence that doesn't really amount to a criticism of medicine; at best it is an illustration that there exist some people involved in medicine (or research) who are dishonest and unethical. That's not a flaw in medicine; it's a flaw in people. One would be hard-pressed to find any field that didn't have its own liars and cheats; CAM is certainly no exception. (It's interesting that Andrew Wakefield is lumped in with the bad 'medicine' crowd, especially given how emphatically the medical community gave him the boot, and who he usually is lauded by these days for his ongoing 'work'.)
The sixth section on historical wrongs is interesting. Our article on professionalization certainly could use some work and perspective, and some of this material might belong there. (Standardizing and regulating the medical profession was a good thing, as was pushing out the homeopaths; losing a century of midwives was not.) The ethical and economic trade-offs (historical and current) involved in choosing who can participate in clinical trials is something that should be discussed in that article, as is determining the appropriate scope, length, and monitoring of such trials. Some of the anecdotes presented might also find a home in informed consent, human subject research, and unethical human experimentation if they're not already there. CAM has its own litany of unethical trials (and worse, the shameless marketing without trials) of its remedies.

In other words, what's there is already better placed (and may already be better covered) in other articles. It lacks any unifying theme other than "here are some bad things that are associated with the last century or so of modern medicine". There's also the subtext of "Here's the CAM laundry list against modern medicine" without the self-awareness that many of the same problems exist – often to a greater extent – in CAM. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons noted above (scoping, context, etc.). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Ioannidis primary source by a secondary source, namely David H. Freedman's article in The Atlantic reporting on Ioannidis' work.
The arguments for deleting (rather than improving) the article are based on unsupported and unjustified allegations:
- That it is "written like a personal reflection or opinion essay" (the claim made in the template). I asked for an explanation of exactly where in the article it reads like my personal opinions, but I didn't get an answer. The article is based on facts and opinions by others, with no OR or editorializing by me. The only relevant opinion I have (apparently a very controversial one) is that there should be a Wikipedia article on this topic.
- That it supports CAM. Please look at the sources. There are 41, and not a single CAM source. There is no favorable reference to CAM anywhere in the article, and there are two negative references (end of first paragraph and end of Section 3). Two of the authors cited (Marcia Angell and Edzard Ernst) are prominent opponents of CAM whose photographs are featured in the alt med article. To the best of my knowledge, the objective of every single author cited in the article is to improve medicine, not to support CAM.
- That it violates NPOV. If there are RS I've missed that say that some of the criticisms are wrong, please supply them to me or add them yourself. When the article was in draft form, an experienced editor improved the article by helping me with Section 3 (which now refers to criticism of Ioannidis' methodology -- I hadn't been aware of those authors). If you think that the reference to the Andrew Wakefield scandal should include a sentence praising the U.K. medical establishment for sanctioning Wakefield (and praising The Lancet for retracting his article after it was shown to be fraudulent), then please add such a sentence. Personally, I think that such a sentence would seem silly, and that it's not necessary for NPOV, but that's just my opinion.
- That a typical Wikipedia reader would think that the article supports religious opposition to modern medicine as being against God's will. This is a very strange allegation to make. Are there any major religions (other than Christian Science, if you consider that a major religion) that hold that view? Is that what most Wikipedia readers have in their minds? I would think that the first thing that would come to mind would be any negative personal experiences that the reader (or a family member) had with hospitals or physicians. As Steven Novella points out in a very interesting blog (Novella, Steven, "Why do people turn to alternative medicine?", Science Based Medicine, retrieved 29 April 2018), personal experiences are very powerful. Readers who have been fortunate enough not to have had such negative personal experiences might think of things that have been prominent in the media -- like the article on the front page of The New York Times yesterday about kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry in America to physicians who prescribe opioids, or the article also on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago about a conspiracy of certain medical researchers and U.S. government officials to lobby the alcoholic beverages industry to finance a study that would show that regular consumption of alcohol should be part of a healthy lifestyle. Readers in western Europe, who are likely to have had more positive experiences with healthcare than American readers, might immediately think of the Paolo Macchiarini affair, which, according to some reports, has undermined the credibility of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In Britain the reader might think of The Lancet publishing the Andrew Wakefield paper that gave a boost to the anti-vaccine movement that has caused damage to public health, especially of children. Why in the world would a reader think that "Criticisms of medicine" come from religion? NightHeron (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that some of our editors have been triggered by the idea of altmed. Carl, in particular, I want to object to your statement that "The problem with a "criticism of mainstream medicine" is that it implies an "alternative", of which there is none." Not only is that a highly POV statement – one that implies that it's okay for non-licensed people to do arthroscopic knee surgery, because that doesn't work and therefore doing those surgeries isn't actually "medicine" – but it's not logically sound. Criticizing conventional medicine doesn't imply that alternative medicine exists, much less than it'd be preferable. It only implies that your profession isn't yet perfect (a view that I believe you very strongly agree with). The "alternative" implied by criticism is for mainstream medicine to live up to its ideals (e.g., to stop doing those ineffective knee surgeries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any title starting "Criticism of..." should be deleted as contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV. Most everything has some pro/cons and they should be presented together in a balanced and factual way. Polemics are contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: So am I right to assume that you're also in favor of deleting all of the following articles: Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of the Israeli government, Criticism of Apple Inc., Criticism of Google, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Mother Teresa, and Criticism of Walmart? NightHeron (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should all go too, though we might file Criticism of Wikipedia in Wikipedia space along with other self-referential pages like WP:DOOMED. Notice that, for these topics, we don't have equivalent pages with a positive spin such as Praise of Wikipedia; Praise of Mother Teresa; Praise of Google, &c. Such one-sided encomiums would tend to get removed on the grounds that they would be promotional. One-sided pages in the other direction are not wanted either and that's policy, "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject...". And there are plenty of cases where they have been deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Petroleum Industry. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of so many "Criticism of..." pages (some quite old) on Wikipedia shows that your opinion is not a consensus view. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Petroleum Industry, I see that there were other problems with the proposed article that caused the consensus to go toward deletion. Typically, the basic article on a subject (such as Mother Teresa) is overwhelmingly based on positive sources, usually with brief mentions of criticisms without details. If one tries to put in details, editors will object that that unbalances the article, violating WP:WEIGHT, and that such material belongs in a separate article. (I'm new at editing Wikipedia, but the suggestion that I write this "Criticisms of..." article came from a very experienced editor.) In the case of Mother Teresa, the two articles together -- the overwhelmingly positive main article and the criticism article -- provide balance. If anything, the balance goes against the criticism article because it is much less viewed: the daily pageview average for the last 3 weeks is 6613 for the main article and 700 for the criticism article. So Mother Teresa comes out ahead. In a criticism article, where reliable sources are available giving criticisms of the criticisms, that should of course be included. I've done that in Section 3, and, if anyone knows sources that say, for example, that Edzard Ernst's criticism in Section 2 is wrong, then by all means add them. NightHeron (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article under discussion is not an attack page. It does not "exist primarily to disparage or threaten" medicine. It exists to show that, according to many sources, the practice of medicine is not perfect and needs improvement. NightHeron (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades:

Section 1.1 is U.S.-specific, as its title indicates, but the access issue is not, as most countries of the world, especially in Africa/Asia/Latin America, have large proportions of the population without access.
That's an interesting point -- that one could argue against Edzard Ernst and David H. Freedman by saying that it's a positive feature of medicine that physicians are too pressed for time doing worthwhile things to be able to devote a lot of time to "bedside manner," the benefit of which is just a placebo effect. Do you know an RS that says this? If so, please add it.
Of course, bad actors, research misconduct, and scandals occur in all branches of science, not just medicine. The reason why they are more notable in medicine (and hence merit more coverage in Wikipedia) is that what goes on in medicine has an immediate impact on the public (and so gets extensive media coverage), whereas what goes on for example in physics and mathematics does not.
The choice of which scandals to mention was based on notability. The Andrew Wakefield scandal was described to me by a member of WikiProject Medicine as "one of the greatest scientific frauds of the 20th century"; the media furor over the David Baltimore scandal is something I still remember a quarter century later; and the Macchianini scandal is (according to some sources) casting a cloud over the Nobel Prize in medicine because of the role of the Karolinska Institute. Major scandals have an effect on public perceptions.
As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not pro-CAM. There's no pro-CAM source or pro-CAM statement in it. I think that the viewpoint of such sources as Ernst and Angell is that it's important to discuss the shortcomings and reduce them, in part in order to lessen the appeal of CAM to the general public.

NightHeron (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split and merge to other articles and redirect to Medicine (as already suggested by others above): Unlike Andrew Davidson above, I am not opposed in principle to "Criticism of..." articles; in my view, one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it so frequently presents legitimate criticism of article subjects, while Wikipedia core content policies and the dialectical process of reaching consensus helps assure that such criticism is indeed (eventually, after sufficient editing!) a legitimate part of knowledge of the subject, and not negative propaganda. The primary reason I see for splitting this article is that many of the sections are not "criticisms of medicine" but are instead various "problems that have arisen in the implementation of medicine", many of them logistical problems. (In contrast, for example, Psychotherapy § General critiques really is mostly—excepting perhaps the third paragraph—about criticism of the fundamental rationale for and process of psychotherapy, not just a description of problems that have arisen in implementing psychotherapy.) By the way, when I hear the phrase "criticisms of medicine" one of the first things that comes to mind is iatrogenic illnesses, which are not even mentioned in this article (see, e.g., Dutton, Diana Barbara; Preston, Thomas A.; Pfund, Nancy E. (1988), Worse than the disease: pitfalls of medical progress, Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511572951, ISBN 0521340233, OCLC 17234197). Biogeographist (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: Thank you for your argument supporting articles of criticism in Wikipedia. Concerning the points you make, certainly a more precise title might be something like "criticisms of the practice of medicine and of quality control in medical research." But I don't think that most Wikipedia readers would be surprised to find that an article titled "Criticisms of medicine" contains just what this article contains (and not criticisms of medical theory). Similarly, the article Criticism of Christianity contains a mix of criticisms of doctrine and of implementation (with emphasis on the latter); likewise for Criticism of Islam. The article Criticism of Wikipedia has some content related to criticisms of the basic concept (such as editing by amateurs) but mostly criticisms of the implementation (such as sexism and disproportionate coverage). Another way my article is typical is that a new article written by a non-expert is not likely to be complete. In particular, you point out that I left out Iatrogenesis (a word that was not even in my vocabulary). I have added a brief section about that, and have also made the section on the U.S. opioid epidemic into a subsection of that section, in response to an editor who pointed out that it's a U.S. problem, not a worldwide problem.NightHeron (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: I haven't recently read the other "Criticism of..." articles, but in any case I wouldn't take their structure and content as a model for this article; an article about medicine will be evaluated differently (but within the shared framework of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies) than an article about religion or about a website (see, e.g., WP:MEDRS). I stand by my statement that the article is a mix of various problems, and I think my opinion is corroborated by similar observations by other editors above (e.g., as TenOfAllTrades said: the issues are of scope and context. There are too many areas that the article attempts to cover), as well as by your own observation immediately above that a more precise title would include multiple subjects. You pointed out that a new article written by a non-expert is not likely to be complete, which is true enough, but you may have just discovered that when you create a new article on a potentially controversial subject (or with a potentially controversial premise), the need to prove that the article has a strong rationale will come with a heavy burden of proof that behooves you to make the article as "complete" and well-designed as humanly possible right from the start. Biogeographist (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn in the nom said that the article is synthetic (WP:SYN) and later said that this is a synthetic topic which is why the article is built on original research. But a distinction needs to be made between a synthetic article subject and synthetic article content. I see consensus among editors who have commented above (with the exception of the article creator and principal contributor, of course) that the content of the article is currently synthetic. That does not mean that the article subject is necessarily synthetic. It could perhaps be proven (using reliable secondary sources) that there is an identifiable body of secondary literature on criticism of medicine and thus that the article subject is not synthetic, even if the article content currently is; but that conclusion has not been proven either in the article itself or in this deletion discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist:

It's been clear from the start that a central reason for objecting to this article has been the fear that it would give aid and comfort to CAM. Some editors outlined all the ways the criticisms would apply even more to CAM than to medicine. Some claimed that simply the title of the article implies CAM. I've argued that nothing whatsoever in the article supports CAM, and User:Discospinster and User:WhatamIdoing also objected to the notion that the mere existence of an article on criticisms of medicine supports CAM. The worries about CAM seem to be the main reason for wanting to delete rather than improve. Even if it were true that this article would undermine efforts against CAM (which in my opinion is just as wrong as saying that Marcia Angell's very strong quote given in the article undermines those efforts), that would not justify censoring an article from Wikipedia.

You say that someone writing a new article on a controversial subject must "make the article as 'complete' and well-designed as humanly possible right from the start" or else expect it to get deleted. In practice, that would mean that non-experts should not attempt to write new articles on controversial topics. That is not Wikipedia policy -- in fact, it goes against basic principles of Wikipedia.

I've looked through WP:MEDRS and don't find anything about medicine-related articles being "evaluated differently." What I do find is guidelines about medical information, especially information of a technical nature that a reader might look at for health information. That's irrelevant to the article under discussion, which contains no such information. Could you be more specific about what part of WP:MEDRS (or any other policy) you have in mind?

I've also looked through WP:SYN and found nothing relevant to the question of a topic that is broad and combines different subtopics. In addition, I've looked through WP:SYNNOT, especially the sections not mere juxtaposition, not presumed, not a catch-all, and not a policy. All of those seem to imply that WP:SYN is not relevant here.

I really fail to see the basis for saying that a wide-ranging article Criticism of Christianity is okay, whereas a wide-ranging article Criticisms of medicine is not. If you have a specific place in Wikipedia policy that calls for making that distinction, please point me to it.NightHeron (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Brief responses to your points/questions: (1) Not true: nom doesn't say anything about CAM, nor do most of the !votes, and speaking for myself, I don't think CAM has anything to do with it. (2) Not true: Somebody has to prove that the article has a valid rationale if they want it to survive, and that is Wikipedia policy: WP:BURDEN a.k.a. WP:PROVEIT. (3) The second paragraph of WP:MEDRS says, in boldface, Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. That's probably the most important point relevant to the article's current content. (4) The first sentence of WP:SYN says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The "conclusion" of Criticisms of medicine is the first sentence/paragraph, which is the thesis of the article and the statement of the article's subject: Despite the tremendous progress of medical science in raising general health levels and increasing life expectancy, there has been criticism that deficiencies retard further advances in public health and contribute to the increased commercial success and popular appeal of alternative healing modalities that are not based on science and in some cases can be very harmful. We need a secondary or tertiary source that shows how all of the issues summarized in the article's sections lead to that conclusion, otherwise the article's thesis is WP:OR. (5) I never said that this article subject is not legitimate; my position is that it has not yet been proven to be legitimate (see the previous point), and given its current state my recommendation is to split and merge to other articles where appropriate. Biogeographist (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: Thanks for your specific comments. (1) Some of the lengthiest commentary consisted of comparisons with CAM. I agree completely with you that CAM has nothing to do with it. (2) My point was that a non-expert cannot be expected to write a new article that is as complete and well-designed as humanly possible. Wikipedia is a collective effort, and the early history of most articles shows them to be far from complete and not polished in their design. My article was as complete and well-designed as I could make it, but far short of the humanly possible. (3) The paragraph in WP:MEDRS with that boldface statement starts by saying that it's referring to "biomedical information," of which there is none in the article under discussion. Do you have in mind any primary source I'm using that gives biomedical information? The previous paragraph of the lede of WP:MEDRS states that content other than medical information is covered by general Wikipedia guidelines. (4)-(5) Thanks for clarifying. Wouldn't that problem be solved by replacing "there has been criticism that deficiencies retard further advances in public health and contribute to the increased commercial success and popular appeal of alternative healing modalities that are not based on science and in some cases can be very harmful" simply by "there have been criticisms of deficiencies"? After that change the lede doesn't do anything other than summarize the content.NightHeron (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, your point (2) is incorrect. BURDEN is about providing a reliable source for an individual claim within an article. It has nothing to do with the overall concept of an article. For that, see WP:N. All that WP:V has to say about the question of whether an article should exist on a subject is that there must be third-party sources for it.

Related to that, if you personally need sources for (4), then you could start with Alternative cancer treatments, since the perceived failures or limitations of conventional medicine are the main reason that cancer patients try "SCAM". I believe that a quick trip to your favorite web search engine will also show you that people turn to alternatives when they're dissatisfied with the institutional aspects of conventional medicine. That is, modern medicine is pretty satisfactory if you need a broken arm fixed, but it's also pretty lousy if you want someone to do the emotional labor of listening to you until you're done talking about your fears about aging and dying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron and WhatamIdoing: (1) Remember, don't mistake length of commentary for relevance or consensus. I don't think it's anywhere close to a consensus view in this discussion that a central reason for objecting to this article has been the fear that it would give aid and comfort to CAM. I don't see that at all. (2) I can see how WP:PROVEIT is not the relevant policy on this point, but generally speaking, within this AFD discussion, if the article is to be kept, somebody has to prove that keeping the article is preferable to the alternatives. I don't see anything above that is close to being good evidence that keeping the article is preferable to splitting and redirecting. (3) My larger point here, apart from WP:MEDRS, is that different judgments will be made about the content of medical articles than will be made about the content of religion articles or entertainment articles, etc. The point is not that there is something remarkable about medicine; the point is that some aspects of evaluating content are what Stephen Toulmin (in his famous book The Uses of Argument) called field-dependent, that is, relative to the particular field. An article about criticism of Facebook could be expected have a different structure than an article about criticism of medicine because the fields are different. (4)–(5) Yes, a lot could be remedied by radically changing the lead and then changing the article sections so that they support the lead in ways that are verifiable by secondary and tertiary sources. If that were done, I would definitely review the article and reconsider my !vote. Biogeographist (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: I made the change in the lede. Thanks again for pointing out to me where there was a problem. Overall, the content of the article is extensively sourced (44 sources for a 20 KB article) and does not editorialize. If there are some places that are not properly sourced or where my wording does not conform to Wikipedia style, please tell me, and I'll change them. For example, earlier someone pointed out that I should not have used a primary source for Ioannidis, and so I replaced it by a secondary source.

The justification for having the article is that the topic meets Wikipedia standards of notability.

The early discussion of deletion included several editors debating whether or not having such an article gives implicit support to CAM. Although in the nom User:Alexbrn did not mention CAM, in the course of the discussion User:Alexbrn commented that the title of the article suggests religious-fundamentalist CAM ("The most obvious source of 'criticism of medicine' content would be fundamentalist religious sources..."), accused me of having a "problematic agenda," and accused User:Discospinster of using a "fringe/ignorant concept" ("Western medicine").

Early in the discussion I read WP:Splitting and asked what the basis in Wikipedia policy would be for splitting this article, since I didn't find any rationale in that policy statement. No one answered. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the reason was that some editors feared that having a separate article entitled "Criticisms of medicine" would give support to CAM. I understand that that's not your reason, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider if the article is changed so as to remove any sourcing or other problems you see in it.NightHeron (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: You wrote: The justification for having the article is that the topic meets Wikipedia standards of notability. Please list below some of the sources that you used to conclude that the overall subject of the article as stated in the lead is notable—not each specific subject mentioned in each section, but the overall subject and thesis of the article as stated in the lead. If you can point out a reliable source about the overall subject of the article that mentions all or most of the specific subjects summarized in the sections, that would be great too. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: My conclusion about notability is based on reading WP:N, which, as User:WhatamIdoing said, is the relevant policy. There are many sources that deal with criticisms of medicine, some of which have titles such as "distrust of medicine," "failure of modern medicine," etc., but a single source normally deals with only a small part of the broad topic. That is not a violation of notability. For example, the topic of Criticism of Christianity passes the notability test. However, the subtopics of the article include doctrinal criticisms, criticisms of historical acts by Christianity, criticisms about the contemporary role of Christianity, and so on. It is likely that no single RS could be found that includes all or most of these subtopics. There are many articles on Wikipedia besides criticism articles about which the same is true. For example, see the list of contents of Bias, which includes a wide gamut of subsections related to different types and settings of bias. It's doubtful that a single source could be found that discusses all or most of them. But WP:N does not require such a single source, so neither Criticism of Christianity nor Bias violates the notability standard.

I don't understand what you mean by "thesis of the article as stated in the lede." The first part of the lede states an indisputable fact (that medicine has produced great benefits) and the second part states another indisputable fact (that there have been many criticisms of deficiencies) and gives a brief summary of the contents. I don't see any "thesis."NightHeron (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: I asked for sources. If you don't have such sources, so be it, but everything you said above is just a repetition of arguments that have already been made (e.g., your comparison of the article to Criticism of Christianity fails again, for the reason that I have already explained twice above), and therefore does not convince me to change my position. What would convince me to change my position, corresponding to the distinction that I made above between a synthetic article subject and synthetic article content, are the sources I requested above (which would prove that the article subject is not synthetic) and revision of the article as I described above (which would prove that the article content is not synthetic, or would correct the article content so that it is not synthetic).

The current lead needs improvement (it had a clear thesis before you edited it).

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. (Footnote: Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.)
Per MOS:LEADREL: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.
Per MOS:LEAD § Scope of article: In some cases the definition of the article topic in the opening paragraph may be insufficient to fully constrain the scope of the article. In particular, it may be necessary to identify material that is not within scope. Biogeographist (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biogeographist: I'm unclear on what's needed here. Of course I did read what you wrote about different fields and different types of topics being evaluated differently, but I don't see how that explains why WP:N would have a different meaning for Criticism of Christianity and for Bias than for Criticisms of medicine.

I could add something to the lede like: "Criticisms of medicine are important not only because progress in any area of science-based practice requires discussion of shortcomings and improvement of deficiencies, but also because the public's perceptions of medicine greatly affect the quality of health care." Then what sources would you have to see in order to accept this? There are sources, for example, that say that a patient's perception of the medical profession affects the outcome; sources that say that negative experiences of the therapeutic relationship drive patients toward alt med; sources that say that patients are discouraged by news reports of fraudulent research; sources that say that lack of access and high cost (or perceived lack of access and high cost) are an obstacle to improved health care; and so on. I would not be able to find a single source that says all these things, but I don't see why that should matter.

I don't see anything in the main body that violates WP:SYN (what you call "synthetic content"). As I mentioned before, juxtaposition does not constitute SYN. As I said, I'd be glad to correct any place that violates WP:SYN, that is, any place that makes an inference that's not explicit in the sources.NightHeron (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can be of further help here. I'm not interested in rewriting the article myself or in giving detailed instruction in how it should be rewritten; perhaps you'll get some help from another editor. Notability is not the issue here, at least not for me and not for the other editors who have made points similar to mine using different words. "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition" isn't the issue for me either, since that refers to a reader who could imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Biogeographist (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist has asked above for a list of some sources that demonstrate "that the overall subject of the article as stated in the lead is notable—not each specific subject mentioned in each section, but the overall subject". Here's a short list:

Tilden, J. H. (1910). Iconoclastic and Constructive Criticisms of the Practice of Medicine. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 9780766131095.
"Medicine: Criticism & Censure". Time. 1960-02-01. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
James., Le Fanu (2000). The rise and fall of modern medicine. New York: Carroll & Graf Pub. ISBN 0786707321. OCLC 44390025. review
"On Medical Criticism". The Lancet. 9 (239): 942–943. March 1828. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)91373-5. ISSN 0140-6736.
1918-1993., Barbour, Allen B. (1995). Caring for patients : a critique of the medical model. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804723893. OCLC 30919806. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) review
"A Criticism of Modern Medicine". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 86 (15): 1132. 1926-04-10. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02670410028013. ISSN 0098-7484.
Bean, William Bennett (1974-11-01). "A Critique of Criticism in Medicine and the Biological Sciences". Archives of Internal Medicine. 134 (5): 858. doi:10.1001/archinte.1974.00320230068015. ISSN 0003-9926.
McKee, Janet (January 1988). "Holistic health and the critique of western medicine". Social Science & Medicine. 26 (8): 775–784. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(88)90171-2. ISSN 0277-9536. PMID 3287633.

Note especially:

There are whole books written on the specific and sole subject of problems within medicine.
This subject has been discussed within (and without) the profession for more than a century.

There is no chance of this being declared non-notable. It's a "thing". The only question is whether we collect this content as a single article, or whether we parcel it out to related articles (including Medicine itself), with the result that those articles include more negative content than they currently do. That decision is a matter of editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the references. Do you know if anything in those references (or other references) could help clarify whether we collect this content as a single article, or whether we parcel it out to related articles? Judging by the article's current state, splitting and merging sections into related articles appears best for reasons given by various editors above, but it would be good to know if there is something in those references (or other references) that would change the decisional calculus. Biogeographist (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we could go either way. For that matter, we could do both: improve our coverage of unflattering facts in each of the articles, and still have a centralized place for people who want to specifically learn about problems that need to be addressed and different POVs for looking at things.

There is no shortage of sources. The question is primarily an editorial question: How do you want readers to find this information? Merging it to Medicine and related articles is a more "in your face" approach (because readers are less likely to click through to a second article), but there's more room to compare and contrast different problems if they're all in a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started reading the first item in the list of references above, John Henry Tilden's Iconoclastic and Constructive Criticisms of the Practice of Medicine and I don't yet see the relevance of it to this article, but I'll keep reading it until I figure it out. Citing that book in this article would definitely expand the novel collection of sources cited in the nom! Biogeographist (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be better off starting with The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine. Our notion of "medicine" has changed somewhat since 1910. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to bring some sources to this discussion. I am wondering a bit about how you went about selecting and evaluating those sources before presenting them, though, and how applicable they are here. I have concerns about the 'freshness' of those sources, for instance—there seems to be only one source from the last twenty years (and then only just barely). Four of the eight are more than fifty years old, with two getting well past the century mark. Medical practice, medical research, medical regulation, medical training—all were rather different in 1828 – or 1910, or even 1960 – than today. If this topic were really only mentioned eight times in the last two centuries, perhaps it is not ripe for an encyclopedia article in any case....

The relevance of many of those sources to this discussion and this article also seems tenuous. Aside from containing the words "criticism" and "medicine" or "medical" in their titles, how do they bear on the question of whether or not we should keep this particular article, with its scattershot, laundry-list approach? The sources provided deal variously with criticism of medical science, medical practice, and medical philosophy, and often espouse mutually contradictory views. (For example, Barbour (1995) bemoans the failure of modern medicine to take full account of patients' psychosocial context; while Le Fanu (2000) argues that modern medical research has been crippled by...too much focus on psychosocial stuff. And those are the only two sources less than thirty years old.) If nothing else, surely there ought to be more recent scholarly sources that actually examine, summarize, and evaluate the assessments and predictions of these decades- and centuries-old publications, especially if they represent important viewpoints that we should refer to today.

Lastly, there's a lot of single-author editorializing (from single-page to book-length formats), but not a lot of context. We have individual criticisms, but no 'criticism of the criticism'—secondary examination of the criticism itself to place it in context. I stick by my original argument to delete this article—the topic is too diffuse, the sources aren't there, and the criticism of various aspects of medicine are better dealt with in various already-extant articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming for sources whose titles unambiguously indicated that they were on this subject, and from a range of decades, so that nobody could claim that complaining about the state of mainstream medicine was just some media flash-in-the-pan that would be over in a week or two.

On the point of titles, it'd be good to include the POV from a source such as Doyal's What Makes Women Sick: Gender and the Political Economy of Health, but it'd be too tempting for someone to say that it's irrelevant because it's about sexism (as sexism happens to play out in the context of mainstream medicine), rather than "just" a pure, de-contextualized critique of pure medicine. I ran across this book via the book review "Critiques of modern medicine", which names several other left-leaning books that might be usefully consulted as part of a WP:YESPOV strategy to build a comprehensive article.

Specifically on the point of criticizing (the current state of) evidence-based medicine, this source has some very interesting information:

Siegfried, Tom (2017-11-13). "Philosophical critique exposes flaws in medical evidence hierarchies". Science News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.

It seems that hierarchies of evidence are not all they're cracked up to be (largely because the quality of a study, not just its type, matters, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did this really need to be relisted? The only person arguing to keep is the creator. Natureium (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bad relist. Concensus is to delete already. This should be closed now. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last two comments misrepresent the discussion. It would be very helpful if a disinterested administrator could examine the discussion (and article) and determine whether a consensus to delete (not the same as majority vote) has been reached, or whether there should be "no consensus" closure. User:Alexbrn in the deletion template claimed that the article is "written like a personal reflection or opinion essay" (but when I asked for evidence of this, no one responded), and in the nom disparaged the sources and claimed that the topic is too broad; later User:Alexbrn also alleged bad faith on my part, claiming that there is a "problematic agenda behind all this." Some of the discussion concerned questions that, as far as I'm aware, have no basis in Wikipedia policy, such as (i) whether or not the existence of a Criticisms of medicine article implies support for alternative medicine and quackery or for the religious-fundamentalist notion that medical care is against the will of God, and (ii) whether or not a single source can be found that touches upon all or most of the sections and subsections. Some of the discussion included specific criticisms that led me to make three improvements (replacing a primary source by a secondary source, deleting a part of a sentence in the lede that wasn't supported by sources in the article, and adding a short section on Iatrogenesis). Other parts of the discussion about the article were positive, saying, for example, that the "premise of the article is not flawed," that sourcing is good, that notability should not be an issue, and that CAM should not be an issue either.NightHeron (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have already commented above. The article is an encyclopedic collection of criticisms of Western medicine. The criticisms don't have to be consistent with each other or form some kind of coherent whole. They don't have to all relate to the same aspect of medicine. They don't have to be "fresh"; even though medicine has advanced over the years, we don't need to ignore what has been said about it in the past (historical research is a thing). It is not biased to have such an article if it doesn't take a position one way or another, and it doesn't have to (nor would it) give equal weight to crackpot theories. There are many reliable sources that discuss what are perceived to be shortcomings of Western medicine. You don't have to agree with them or think they are "rational" but they are notable. ... discospinster _talk 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to point out that the article Criticism of science survived an AfD with unanimous keeps. ... discospinster _talk 20:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? Can anyone explain to me what WP:OP (open proxies) has to do with this discussion?NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you cease being a newbie, you will realise that in context, OP means original poster. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bashing people for not happening to know all of the internet slang (this isn't even wiki-specific jargon) is unkind and WP:BITEy. I think you should amend your comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and divide to "Criticism of the US medical system" and " Criticism of mainstream medicine" (or possibly Criticism of Western mainstream medicine",), both articles that we do not have and which would be appropriate. Contrary to what was said, an article should form a coherent whole. I point out that the US medical system viewed in its economic meaning does unfortunately include homeopathy and chiropractic , which are clearly not scientific medicine. These are therefore separate topics. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support this approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what DGG is suggesting when he says that "the US medical system viewed in its economic meaning" includes alt med. Does this just mean that American consumers financially support a large alt-med industry? If so, the same is true in many countries (China, India, Brazil, U.K., Russia, etc.). How does that relate to the topic of the article under discussion, which is criticisms of mainstream medicine? The original title was "Criticisms of mainstream medicine," but I think that even with the title "Criticisms of medicine" it will be clear to readers that we're talking about criticisms of standard medical practice, not alternative modalities. Criticisms of homeopathic and chiropractic treatments belong elsewhere.NightHeron (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US Medical system, seen as asocial and economic institute, consists of those institutions and activities which people and governments support for the purpose of preventing and curing disease. This includes both parts that actually do this, and parts that do not do what they are supposed to. One can discuss and criticise this system on grounds of economics, social distribution of care, and results. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Does "those institutions and activities which people" support include private ones, such as companies big and small, organizations, and wellness centers that promote alt med?NightHeron (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2018 (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 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Pharmacy Holding

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

Non-notable, all external links are dead. lovkal (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some routine coverage can be found, indicating that after the period covered by the present article, the firm was sold off by SCM Holdings in July-August 2013 ([13], [14]) so a redirect would not be appropriate. A company profile for a Lviv-based firm of this name can be found (on Lookchem, blacklisted here), but without confirmation that it is the successor to the Donetsk-based firm of the article. At any rate, nothing indicates WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2018 (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 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Caïs

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

Subject of the article requested to have the article deleted. A different editor added some info concerning a bankrupcy related to the subject. Proposing for deletion to get feedback from others Kaosame (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make things clear the nominator created the article which I reviewed as a new pages patroller. There was little in the article to suggest notability but in the sources that the nominator/creator provided there was quite a bit of information about the company that he started that went bankrupt which the article oddly enough didn't mention.. so I added it. The nominator/creator then immediately moved the page to draft space and blanked it. I moved it back to main space and someone claiming to be the subject left a message on the talk page saying they didn't want the article to remain. The nominator/creator asked for deletion and the page was deleted as a G7 but as I had also edited the page I asked for a refund as I am not a fan of censorship. There semms very little notable about this person but let's see what other editors decide. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable about Cais.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1-Methyl-5-methoxy-diisopropyltryptamine

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

This is not a notable chemical compound (all chemical compounds must meet WP:GNG to be included in Wikipedia). There is no reference to this chemical compound in the scientific literature (no references found via SciFinder or Reaxys). The only references on the web appear to be forum posts on recreational drug sites - nothing anywhere near a WP:RS. It shows up in a few chemical databases, such as PubChem (which cites Wikipedia as its source), but there is no content beyond identification. The article fails both WP:N and WP:V. ChemNerd (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep nothing in pubmed at least. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete not a notable compound in any sense. Perhaps if someone could expand on its history (e.g. person/time discovered, structural relation to other psychedelics, cultural significance), but that seems unlikely at this point. Aglo123 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Vezelis

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of sources or other evidence of notability. Futhermore, ordained by a sedevacantist prelate, he consequently never was a bishop of the Catholic church. NAH 16:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBIO as per nom. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Butler, it was noted by that article's creator that this group had, at the time, 6 ordained members, 2 of which were bishops. It doesn't seem like the group has grown since then. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG and too small a group for a bishop to be presumed notable Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun West Mortgage

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

Company lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sun West is one of the first and largest mortgage banks in the United States. As for significant coverage I added some more citations. Now it has just as many citation (if not more) compared to other articles of a similar size.Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 16:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable = Yes. I see multiple independent sources used throughout the article and more available with a quick google search. However, I think the company could be discussed in more detail. Freetheangels (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable with many proper references. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 15 May 2018 (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 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Loisel Le Gaucher

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

I declined a WP:PROD of this article thinking it could be salvaged. I was able to find some references to back up claims in the article, but the subject simply doesn't pass WP:NBIO. The only sources I can find are general lists of French noble families or genealogical records for this family, like this. This person is referenced in the article for Château du Broutel, which seems notable enough, but I don't think that confers notability to people connected to it. The family as a whole might be notable, as lords of Broutel, but I'll leave that determination up to someone who can actually read French. clpo13_(talk) 15:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as proponant, I could only find short mentions on genealogy websites and on google books. Comte0 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Château du Broutel. Subject otherwise seems to fail WP:NBIO. Mentions in genealogies/lists of nobles are just passing mentions, and of course WP:INHERITED applies, especially given the lack of sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Patent Law Association

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

This advertisement for a run-of-the-mill association of lawyers offers no evidence of any significant coverage of the association in any publication. The sources given are largely citations from BLPA's own website, or notations of membership in the websites of the various members lawyers. Searches for sources turn up mostly mentions in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor local organisation. Fails NORG, and article has the typical miasma of something COI or PAID. Sam Sailor 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- promotional article, doesn't pass WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 04:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HER_(healthy_energy_revitalizer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/HER (healthy energy revitalizer)

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

Delete. Non-notable product and also fails WP:GNG. There have been no significant coverage about the product for 7 years. I did some research for some other possible reliable sources, but there was none -- only a news article from BevNet which also fails WP:RS Romrom9 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hee

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - the one source provided doesn't provide evidence for notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: When an album has a bylined Allmusic review, I am loath to opt for deletion. That said, WP:NALBUM criterion 1 probably needs something more. In this case, Google Books shows the album mentioned in an "Encyclopaedia of Popular Music" and in Nicholson's "Jazz Rock: A History" and also specifically for examples in respect of guitar [15] and percussion [16]: just about enough, I think, in aggregate. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the points put forth by AllyD. For the most part, this album, in a weak way albeit, does qualify for the WP:NALBUM criterion. While notability of the musicians in Tribal Tech cannot obviously be inherited by the album, the examples listed by AllyD do indicate the noteworthiness of the album. In my opinion, what we should do is add more citations to support the content on the page so as to improve its quality. If this cannot be done, then perhaps we can revisit this debate. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added sources (thanks, Ally) and per [[WP:MUSICOUTCOMES]]. We are back in the good old days of loading cassette tapes in our Commodore 64 here, and I suspect more sources will become available in the future. Nom should please be aware that per policy several alternatives to deletion exist. Sam Sailor 23:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to North Dakota State Bison#Media. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bison Illustrated

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

Fails WP:Notability. A search does not show sources outside of the brand itself or its parent company. Editor10293813 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. North Dakota loves the Bison, and this publication is cited frequently in connection with NDSU sports reporting (here's one from Sports Illustrated:[17]), but other than a non-NPOV university press release announcing its first issue [18] I don't find much to suggest it needs its own, separate article. The magazine is already mentioned in the main NDSU article; I suggest adding a similar sentence at North Dakota State Bison#Media and calling it a day. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KingAndGod 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Arxilos; perfectly legitimate publication but the article's current state seems to demonstrate that a separate article can't really be justified based on independent coverage. It can correctly and usefully be mentioned in the general article about NDSU. ~ mazca ^talk 22:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I have added information about the magazine to the media section in the North Dakota State Bison article. Editor10293813 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with above consensus - not enough for a standalone - works as a redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:41, 10 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Sultan

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. Main claim to fame seems to be a minor role on the sitcom Timmy G, but I can find no significant coverage of her in WP:RS online in English or Urdu. Proposed for deletion in 2011, with prod contested by article creator without comment. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Isn't yet notable enough, however there are a few mentions. I'll give it a weak delete for now. M A A Z T A L K 21:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Marsh

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

IMBD shows a series of work on this actor, but a WP:BEFORE found not significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR , WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG . Sources provided are aimed at the play and Neil Simon and not Jamie Marsh. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Here is a recent article about Marsh and Lost in Yonkers and the whole Kevin Spacey mess. [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9BD0:4FD0:ACED:3059:D601:EC14 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh originated a role in the original Broadway production of Neil Simon's Pulitzer Prize and Tony award winning play Lost in Yonkers. This is a significant contribution to American Theater. It is the only play Neil Simon won a Pulitzer Prize for and is considered a classic American play. Wikipedia regards theater as important as other art forms. Had Marsh been on a significant TV show in such a capacity we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Why does the person trying to delete this article hold theater/Broadway in lower esteem than Television or Film? I do not understand why this article is being put up as consideration for deletion.

[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9BD0:4FD0:71AB:3585:348A:F86E (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[21]

[22][23]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9BD0:4FD0:85A1:CC6:3D4A:79C2 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The single Broadway credit by itself might be enough to pass WP:NACTOR. But add to that his significant role in Brainscan, and that meets the first criteria of WP:NACTOR. Article definitely needs work to conform to MOS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesnt pass significant coverage WP:SIGCOV which is one of the core criteria for meet notability. In additon, source provided are not "direct" support subject at all. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per originating role in Tony winner. Coverage "jamie+marsh"+actor here and "jamie+marsh"+actor here, among others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - weak source - article fails WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Woo-young

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing that supports a claim of meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. German Wikipedia has a sligthly better developed article, it is however not better sourced, so for the time being subject fails NHOCKEY as well as GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Institute of Technology

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

A commercial satellite college with no independent degree-granting authority, that runs a handful of courses. The article lacks reliable independent sources, and Google shows only directories, press releases and forums. One author, a WP:SPA, username is a match for the company's business development manager. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and recreate - Suits speedy delete as it is very very promotional, however it is still notable. It shall be re-edited in someway anyways. ^CYBER_{Talk: Online} 14:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC) striking nonsense from now blocked, block evading sock--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as wholly promotional WP:ARTSPAM. I tagged for WP:CSD#G11. No, it is not notable. It cannot and should not be recreated w/o sourcing showing it meets notability. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree to disagree. It is notable with proper sources. ^CYBER_{Talk: Online} 14:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)~~striking reply from now blocked, block evading sock--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. nothing really spamming except the gallery, which i removed. A genuine tertiary institution. Affiliation in India can be a matter of who technically gives the degree, not administrative or education independence. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. While the article can certainly use expansion and improvement, Wikipedians will gain no benefit from its deletion, but can only profit from the awareness of this institute's existence. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a degree-awarding tertiary institution. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L. Moshier

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Moshier is sole author of seven patents: what more would be needed to make him a notable inventor?

More importantly, Mr Moshier is sole author of a major component of a major public domain numerical computing library. This creates significant, long lasting interest in who he is. That he has not had a shiny academic career may come as a surprise to those who look him up - which rather increases the interest of having an article about him. -- Nsda (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half a million patents are filed annually. Are all of these authors notable? Natureium (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many patents by sole authors? How many of them have authored 7 or more? But I am not insisting on this. Moshier is notable for his contributions to numeric computing. -- Nsda (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient independent reliable sources about the subject to establish that the subject of this biography meets the WP:BIO criteria "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The fact that this individual holds seven patents doesn't do much on its own to establish notability. As an example, my brother in law who works as a researcher in a technology firm holds 26 patents, but there is nothing that distinguishes him from his colleagues or others in his line of work. ANDREVV (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is author of a book that received over 80 citations in the scientific literature: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=20&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=moshier+Methods+and+programs+for+mathematical+functions -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) — 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. One book with approximately 80 citations (and a few other patents and publications with fewer) is not enough by itself for WP:PROF, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an academic, therefore WP:PROF is not pertinent. See rather WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Moshier has co-created Netlib. We should not rate such important piece of engineering lower than some artistic creation. -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to believe he is notable for "co-creating" something whose article, and whose sources about its creation, don't even mention him. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Netlib is indeed a lamentable stub, and not all reflecting the importance of the subject. Writing biographies of its authors is one possible approach to its improvement. -- 2001:A61:470A:8301:D897:EC18:3DA7:92F9 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netlib contains 162 packages. What published evidence is there that this particular package has any significance within netlib? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to find significant coverage about subject; delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I give up on this, please proceed with deletion. -- Nsda (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lizette Parker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The sourcing is very weak and relies on obituaries in local newspapers. The result of the previous discussion was "no consensus". The keep arguments were based on the fact that she was Teaneck's first african-american mayor. I do not believe that being the first mayor of any race in a particular town is notable by itself. If she were the first african-american mayor anywhere in the state, then yes (but she is not). It also should be mentioned that Teaneck does not directly elect its mayors, they are appointed by the council among its members. Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. --RAN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the first African American females to serve as mayor in the US, died in office, plenty of coverage. You brought this article to AfD a mere six months ago and it was kept, so what exactly is the idea? You're going to keep nominating it until you're successful? Enigma^msg 04:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enigmaman:1. She was not the first african-american female mayor in the United States or even New Jersey Unless you are suggesting that her race and gender create automatic notability (which to my knowledge they do not) 2. The result of previous discussion was not keep, it was "no consensus". Six months is more than a reasonable amount of time to revisit a "no consensus" discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say she was the first. Enigma^msg 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't even "one of the first". And incidentally, relisting a page for another discussion after a few months is an entirely appropriate response to a "no consensus" closure — it's not malfeasance, but standard practice to revisit discussions that didn't close with a clear keep or delete the first time. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She was not one of the first African American women to serve as mayor in the US — holy hell, she wasn't even close to that — or even in her own state; the article's only claim is that she was the first African American woman mayor in her own county. But a historic distinction that's limited to her own county is not a notability freebie — every place that has mayors at all will always eventually have its own local "first member of X group" mayor for virtually every possible value of X, so that isn't a magic notability bullet if the historicity of the distinction doesn't break wider than just her own local area. She would have to be reliably sourceable as significantly more notable than most other smalltown mayors — which the sourcing here is not showing, as it's limited almost entirely to the routine obituaries in her own local media that every mayor of everywhere could always show when they die. The only very slight evidence of beyond-local notability here is the fact that one citation is to The Root, a more widely-distributed and widely-read publication — but even that citation is just a short blurb, not genuinely substantive coverage, so it's not a magic GNG pass all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. --RAN (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the Associated Press had devoted ongoing coverage to her political career while she was alive, that would be evidence of notability — but smalltown political figures do not instantly clear the extralocal coverage condition the very moment one piece of more than local coverage exists. It still takes evidence of ongoing nationalized media attention, not just a single shot of WP:BIO1E juice. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would make sense only if you could show me that the AP gave obituaries to every other mayor who died in the United States over the past 50 years. WP:GNG makes no distinction between biographies and obituaries. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no need for her to be more notable than anyone else. The article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR quite easily. There are multiple reliable sources which cover the subject, so WP:42/WP:GNG seems to me to be satisfied, and the tone and material seems encyclopedic to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the volume of sourcing shown here is enough to make Parker notable, then every single person who's ever been mayor of anywhere at all is equally notable — because in the entire sweep of human history, not one single solitary mayor of anywhere has ever lacked for every bit as much or more sourceability as this. Mayors of towns this size are not all deemed automatically notable just for existing, however — and if a class of topic is not "inherently" notable, then getting a member of that class of topic in the door most definitely does require evidence that she's significantly more notable than the her other peers that we aren't accepting as notable. I am 100 per cent correct about how wikinotability works for smalltown mayors — it is not "some local media coverage of her exists", because every mayor of everywhere can always say the same. It is a question of whether or not she can be shown as significantly more notable than most other smalltown mayors, by virtue of being sourceable to more coverage than most other smalltown mayors get. If this amount of coverage is enough to make Parker notable, then there's no such thing as a non-notable mayor at all anymore, because there's never been a single mayor of anywhere who couldn't show as much sourcing as this.

Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her death was reported by the Associated Press, an international organization. If Bearcat gets an obit by the Associated Press, I will write their Wikipedia entry myself. --RAN (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I don't really have a problem with nearly all mayors being includable in the encyclopedia, given they satisfy WP:CCPOL and the article satisfies WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. For me, I would be ambivalent about a living politician with only local coverage because of those two sections of NOT. But when a person is passed, I'm less concerned about restricting our definition of encyclopedic based on the population of a persons city or the circulation of the paper used as a source (assuming the paper is likely RS). CCPOL and NOT strike me as a decent enough guides in these cases. If one too many pokemon critters or minor league shortstops or small town politicians have an article, well WP:NOTPAPER. I understand that the consensus view, which you may well be 100 per cent correct about, is more restrictive than this, so I don't !vote on every case. But I did !vote on this one because I do think she is a suitable subject for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia keeping an article about every single mayor who ever mayored in all of human history would be absolutely unsustainable and umaintainable — even with "inherent" NPOL notability restricted to state or national legislators, we still aren't doing a very good job of actually keeping those articles clean and current and well-sourced, let alone adding thousands more people to the "inherently notable" queue for politicians. So the rule for mayors has always been, and should rightly continue to be, that they are notable enough for articles only if they can demonstrate a credible claim to their mayoralties having notability beyond just the bounds of their own local area — i.e. major cities whose politics are demonstrably of broad reader interest, and maybe the odd smalltown mayor here and there who can be especially well-sourced to much more than just routine local obituaries. That's not what the sources here are demonstrating, however. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your point. To me, the concern that leniency in classifying a subject as suitable for an article will lead to an unsustainable number of articles is a concern about a hypothetical issue - we simply don't have a problem with too many local interest articles at wikipedia. I remember when wikipedia included unsourced technical specifications about tech hardware and an articles about every pokemon critter. There were users enough interested in these things that the articles were more or less NPOV and factually correct (or fictionally as the case may be). They did fail NOR and V and parts of NOT and have since been deleted or re-worked. This page on Parker didn't have vandalism (no vandalism in 2 years and 1,800 page views since creation), V, NPOV, or NOR problems prior to the AfD. Being open to including local public figures can lead to abuse; and certainly does when we see articles about candidates and politicians (issues about whitewashing pages about people, especially living ones, have been discussed - see Twitter:congressedits). Its existence is evidence that we have users enough to support such articles. We don't have a great backlog at unreferenced BLP (Category:Unreferenced BLPs). Our NPOV backlog underestimates the problem, but it is also reasonable (Category:NPOV disputes). As I said before, you may be right about what the rule for mayors has always been and should continue to be, and I don't weigh in on every case. But I did weigh in on this one because I see her case as especially reasonable (Category:NPOV disputes). Note that we do have difficult to handle backlogs at NPP/AFC, and we have had some research into the issue and proposed solutions (meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial).

To address the question by SportingFlyer below, which I interpret as a request for more particular detail explaining keep !votes, beyond satisfying V/NPOV/NOR, I think that the headlines of obituaries of her call her "History making" and "groundbreaking" are good indicators of suitability - a point that Bearcat and RAN argued about at the last AfD (which had at least one SP !vote keep). I would reconsider my !vote if it were clear that those obituary headlines were not independent of the subject, for instance. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If (and that's a big if) it's true that we don't have a huge problem with too many local interest articles as Wikipedia, it certainly isn't that people aren't trying to flood Wikipedia with local interest articles — they are, and constantly at that — it's that we normally delete them when they come to AFD. On any given day, however, AFD is literally flooded with discussions about people, places and things that have no substantively extralocal claim of notability at all: smalltown mayors, city councillors, library and parks and transportation and school board members, residential cul-de-sacs and side streets, restaurants, furniture stores, winners of high school poetry contests, bands who have never accomplished anything more than playing their local pub twice, single-station local radio and television personalities, fire and police chiefs, and on and so forth, are things that people try to create Wikipedia articles about all the time. So it's far from a hypothetical issue — it's a real issue that already happens far, far more than it's supposed to. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. You asked if we have a problem with too many local interest articles being created. I'm particularly interested in biographies, and think given the discussion so far, it would be ok to focus on politicians. In AfDs created during March 2018, I count 62 AfDs deletion-sorted into Politicians-related deletion discussions which were deleted (70%), 16 which were kept (18%), and 4 which were closed without consensus (4.5%), 5 with redirect (5.6%), 2 withdrawn (2.2%), and 0 with merge or other results (89 total articles, some of the deleted AfDs were multiple article AfDs, none of the kepts or no consensues were). That is a bit under 3 AfDs per day. Since politicians were included as a sorting category in 2008, I count 3,356 such articles were closed as delete (60%), 1,263 as keep (22%), 319 as no consensus (6%) (other outcomes exist as well, of course, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive). The months with the most submissions were October 2016 with 95, July 2014 with 92, and March 2018 with 89. Over the past few years the total number of submissions per year has been growing slowly, with 799 last year (also a bit under 3 per day). This may seem like a flood, but the rate has been above 1 per day since 2010 and there hasn't, to my mind, been a great jump in the rate. Personally, I do not think 2 to 3 per day on average is a flood. I also think a deletion rate of 60% to 70% for these types of articles is a rate consistent with a large proportion of these types of articles being submitted in good faith as an attempt to add encyclopedic content to wikipedia. Full disclosure, I !voted at three of these, !voting keep on all three, contributing to two of them, and all three were kept. Bearcat, you !voted on nearly all of them - I did not count how often you !voted which way. For comparison, looking at articles deletion-sorted into bands and musicians, 4139 out of 22149 (18.7%) have been kept since that sorting started in September 2007 and about 5.6 articles are submitted per day sorted into that category. I rarely !vote on articles in that category. I agree that in total, there is a flood of articles submitted to AfD (between 50 and 100 most days, I think), and a majority of articles are and should be deleted (I don't pile on with my !votes so I skip a lot of clear deletes, but I still !vote delete about 50% of the time). I apologize that this comment is so off-topic and, as before, welcome follow ups not about Parker to continue elsewhere. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with the obituaries calling her "historical" or "groundbreaking?" There's no other reliable sources I can find which discuss this fact during her life! She is notable at best for being a small-town mayor who died in office. Based on the available sourcing, this is going to be kept or no-contested because she died. I'm really fascinated by this AfD for this precise reason, since this means you could argue anyone who had an independently written obituary could pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this (or these) trains of thought have gotten a bit off track for this AfD. Feel free to disagree, but if anyone wants to continue a conversation on these lines, I think we should do so elsewhere. I'd be happy to discuss at my talk page, or (if pinged) somewhere else appropriate. Thanks again for your thoughts and insights. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do still disagree: whether obituaries make someone notable in the absence of other sources is the key issue here. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then lobby to have those changes incorporated into WP:GNG instead of making ad hoc arguments at each entry. --RAN (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "then every single person who's ever been mayor of anywhere at all is equally notable" that is a good argument that mayors have inherent notability, maybe they should all have articles. However, if you can only write a paragraph, we bundle those short biographies into lists. See Mayors of Teaneck, New_Jersey. --RAN (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of politicians on Wikipedia are not expanded into extended biographical dictionaries of all the list entries. If a person does not qualify to have their own biographical article about them stand alone as its own independent article, then they do not qualify to have the equivalent of a full biographical article about them pasted into a list in lieu of an independent article either. And no, mayors should not all have articles, either — a mayor's notability should remain dependent on whether their mayoralty is the subject of wider reader and source interest beyond just their own hometown, because Wikipedia keeping an article about every person who was ever mayor of anywhere would be an utterly unsustainable endeavour. We're not even doing an adequate job of properly maintaining the politicians we already accept as "inherently" notable now, let alone adding hundreds of thousands more people to that bucket. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the above claim contravenes policy which statesno rule which establishes that someone who is potentially not notable enough to warrant their own article can never be covered with regard to their biographical details in any article. Nor is there even a presumption that any details pertaining to them should not be covered if they fail GNG or NWHATEVER. and WP:AVOIDSPLIT which says: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article. Note that notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."Djflem (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as not independently notable other than being a politician. The only sources are either obituary pieces or relate to her election. Only her death seems to have generated a lot of coverage, which makes sense as it's somewhat rare for a mayor to die in office, but I also think there's a WP:NOTNEWS issue with that. SportingFlyer talk 03:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and Enigmaman. Hmlarson (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. That's all we need to show. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still meets WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG if not NPOL perhaps. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Sufficient coverage. Husounde (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's five Keep votes in a row saying she passes WP:GNG without any discussion as to why. I know we're heading to a keep or a no consensus, but would someone please explain to me why she passes WP:GNG? I'm actually interested as an AfD voter as to what I'm missing. Almost everything I can find about her relates to her untimely passing. All of the links on her page reference her obituary except one, and that one is a dead link. The articles I can find that mention her work are not about her, but mention her in passing. Why does this pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 01:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP: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". The guideline makes no distinction between biographies and obituaries. There is nothing in the wording constraining the geographic circulation of the reliable source, as if there was such a thing, since we now distribute media through the Internet. --RAN (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem here is the obituaries are actually trivial. The Nj.com article is only eight sentences long. The Root and New York Post articles are even shorter. There's a good article about her funeral, granted. Obituaries cannot on their own establish notability: everyone dies, and even though a number of local papers picked up a four- or five-sentence article about her death, there's really no coverage of her being notable in her life in a way that would satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a trivia exclusion in the guideline, only a requirement for "significant coverage", which is clearly defined in the guideline. "Everyone dies" but not everyone gets an obituary, you are confusing a paid funeral notice with an obituary. Some papers do obits for prominent local citizens, but that would be one reference. The GNG requires multiple ones, Lizette Parker has met that requirement. --RAN (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not significant coverage, though. Multiple papers ran trivial obituaries, including the ones linked in the article as it stands. Trivial coverage is the opposite of significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 03:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." every fact is referenced, please point out the original research. --RAN (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BASIC"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is well defined and objective, "trivial coverage" is left undefined and subjective, which is why you get to use it in almost every argument for deletion. --RAN (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going off the rails as an argument. All we have here are eight-sentence obituaries which got picked up by a smattering of local media. While multiple newspapers ran with it, it's effectively one source, though voters are claiming it's "sufficient" or "significant coverage." Significant coverage also only presumes notability. To me, someone who died who would not otherwise pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL doesn't get that presumption, even assuming the coverage is significant. Also, a couple interesting reads on obituary notability: [24] [25] It's frustrating to me everyone's assuming she passes WP:GNG when there's a larger argument to make here. SportingFlyer talk 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Effectively one source" is not one source, again subjective. Showing that they have the same exact wording would prove they are one source, which would be objective, and easy to prove. If a bot can do it, it is objective. If only a human can discern something that is "effectively" or "almost" then you might as well not bring it up. --RAN (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the reliable BEFORE sources directly relate to the fact she passed away and except for the long-form story about her funeral are very short, very similar articles. How are those multiple sources? That's all we have to go on! SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Very similar" does not mean identical, see above argument. All the biographies I have read on Abraham Lincoln are disturbingly similar, they discuss his parents and his birth, his law school education, his marriage, the civil war, and his assassination. They are all very eerily similar, and they all curiously put the facts in the same exact order. Someone should look into this. --RAN (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a small town mayor to the president of the United States is like comparing apples to oranges. Unlike Parker, Lincoln already had plenty written about him before he died.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Sufficient coverage. Djflem (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than meets coverage and GNG given her status as the first female African-American mayor in NJ's largest, most populous county (Bergen), as well as Teaneck. Long-term, if we had more of a mix of editors - for example more African-American editors or editors with a firm interest in state & municipal government - these kinds of potential deletions would become rarer. Scanlan (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Second nomination by Rusf10 in such a short time seems a bit WP:POINTy, although I confess to not seeing what the POINT is in trying, twice, to delete a solidly-sourced article with SIGCOV of this life and career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you? I already explained above the previous discussion was closed "No consensus". Six months is more than a reasonable amount of time to revisit. All you do here is follow me around anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of AfDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep votes are majory misinterpreting GNG. She recieved routine coverage in her local area, nothing more. For a politician this is a clear fail of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considered to be routine: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I think you are the one "majory [sic] misinterpreting" the guideline. When an editor just points to a guideline without quoting from it, it usually means they have not read it, just memorized the acronym. Please do not argue that all mentions of Lizette Parker are covered by the "etc." Then I will have to argue that "etc." could mean information on popes and presidents. --RAN (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-sentence obituaries are the definition of routine. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all means lobby to have the definition changed so that it includes the eight-sentence rule. 8 (sentences) x 19 (references) = 152 (sentences, if they all were 8 sentences). The first AP obit I got on my phone for Barbara Bush was just 6 sentences, followed by a much longer one an hour later. Lizette Parker had 8 sentences, followed by longer ones for her funeral. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False claim, see Wikipedia:AUD: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Clearly more than "at least one", with much regional and national coverage.Djflem (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she meets the WP:GNG. I am open to all options with relisting so was curious as to the reason for the relist after 6 months. This is short. Was disappointed that nominator did not provide a good reason and instead claimed it isn't short. gidonb (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here to close this AfD and, given all the "keep" !votes expected to close accordingly. However, after reading through the arguments espoused above and perusing the sources, I changed my mind. The "delete" !votes have much stronger policy-based arguments. In my opinion, this bio does not meet GNG or any other guideline. The coverage is local and routine and what you would expect for any mayor, especially one who tragically dies at a young age. Given the preponderance of "keep" !votes, that seem mostly based on the subject meriting an article (but "merit" is not a notability criterion), I decided not to close this debate (while within discretion, a delete close would certainly have ended up at DRV and cause unnecessary drama), but to !vote myself instead. --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage of the subject is the definition of local and routine. WP:N demands "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", and the sourcing here fails to achieve that. An obituary is simply not enough to push this over the line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Keep as per WP:DGFA. This is another "I have the right to nominate articles on New Jersey and nearby states" nomination.192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you realize that a cryptic !vote like this is bound to be ignored by the closing admin... --Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this IP made a policy-based argument (then got cryptic).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This surely will be ignored by the admin as it has been every time Unscintillating has used it in the past, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating--Rusf10 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to RandyKitty's iVote (just above the relist) I note that it is not routine to have a black, female Mayor of an upscale, majority white New Jersey suburb, and nor is it routine for a mayor to die in her early forties while in office, which may explain why the was an AP story about her death ran in The Root (magazine), a national black publication, and the New York Post, a paper not known for deigning to cover routine events in the Jersey 'burbs. Judgement on what passes GNG varies, of course, but the coverage here seems to me to meet WP:SIGCOV by extending over many years, being regional and national as well as local, and with detailed coverage of subjects life and political career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to carve out special criteria. If we were to take just take the category mayors who die in office, it probably has very few members, but that doesn't make someone notable just because they died in office. Also nearly 30% of Teaneck is black, a fact you obviously didn't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One also acknowledges that in the NY metro area (which has 100s of municipalities) or nationally, not all mayors who die in office, who are women, who are black get extensive news coverage from flagship stations of national networks such as Parker did on WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC & the previously mentioned AP Djflem (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's local news, she died in office, not that many mayors die in office, so it gets covered. However, if someone is really notable why wouldn't they get extensive coverage during the time they were living?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But of course those others who die in office are not often the first female African-American mayor in the state's largest, most populous county or of the municipality they represent.Djflem (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY (well, a small HEY) after listening to the arguments for deletion, I went again to look not just at the sources but for sources. Adding more coverage of her years as a member of the City Council, and more non-local coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back to continue, but NOTE that this certainly passes WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: national radio stations syndicated story citing (bold mine)

"A mere two years after making history by becoming the first African American mayor of Teaneck, New Jersey, Lizette Parker has passed away."

https://magicbaltimore.com/3472805/morning-minute-ga-man-reportedly-shot-his-in-laws-because-his-wife-was-planning-to-file-for-divorce/ WWIN-FM (95.5 Majic), Baltimore
https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/tag/lizette-parker/ Rickey Smiley Morning Show, WHTA (Hot 107.9), Atlanta
https://myhoustonmajic.com/author/ronemyhoustonmajic/page/548/ KMJQ, (Majic 102.1), Houston
https://kysdc.com/page/1433/?iframe=true&preview=true%2Ftag%2Fthe-dmv%2F WKYS (93.9 WKYS) Washington, D.C.
https://theboxhouston.com KRKF-LP (97.9 The Box), Houston/Corpus Christi

Don't think it's necessary to include these refs, unless someone would like to have the national coverage documented in article.Djflem (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question From Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES about notable firsts: an edit made 9 January 2016 by Bearcat which s/he has invoked on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, there is no link to any RfDs which other editors can review, which would be appropriate since the comment about coverage (repeated by others) and the added guideline seems to originate from one person who is citing h/self. Are there such links, and can it be provided? Would be useful to those engaged in RdD discussions of this sort. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine coverage in life and some coverage about the fact that you died don't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not routine coverage: clearly fulfills Wikipedia:AUD having been covered in local, statewide, regional, and national media.Djflem (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the question "Should local New Jersey political figures have biographical entries?" is one of the topics discussed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Here: The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See you posted this in two places now, it has nothing to do with this discussion, see WP:NOTFORUM--Rusf10 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the intensity of Wikipedia editing on topics that strike the Wall Street Journal as remarkable. I noticed the article and mention it here because I, too, have found the intensity of editing on New Jersey politicians to be remarkable. We should all be aware of the damage that our petty personal feuding does to the reputation of the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still notable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? WP:Clearly notable--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still notable for reasons previously decided. Serial deletion requests are a waste of valuable editor time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this a least twice already, the previous close was "no consensus". Therefore, nothing was "decided"--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG at least. And still. Someone once offered a statement about the definition of insanity... I for one don't expect a different result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption (Fast novel)

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Doesn't have sources, with only a review from a website and an Amazon.com page as external links. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NB. No signs of notability. Got one page on Amazon and one on goodreads (which is also owned by Amazon). The link to the review is not working in my region or country maybe. Error code 404. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time of nomination in Special:Diff/799904668/840226519, the article was indeed not unreferenced, and that aside, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and sources are only found when we go looking for them. I had no problems adding citations to six good sources: bylined reviews from Los Angeles Times,^[1] The Christian Science Monitor,^[2] and The Washington Post,^[3] as well as several {{cite book}}s.^[4]^[5]^[6] The article more than meets [[WP:GNG]] now. Sam Sailor 14:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harris, Michael (29 June 1999). "New Twist for a Master Storyteller". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
^ Hoyle, John Christian (12 August 1999). "There is a caring heart on Gotham's mean streets". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 10 May 2018. – via HighBeam (subscription required)
^ Greenya, John (8 August 1999). "Thrillers". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 May 2018. – via HighBeam (subscription required)
^ Gale Research Company (1999). Something about the Author. Gale Research. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-7876-3216-8. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
^ Sorin, G. (2012). Howard Fast: Life and Literature in the Left Lane. The Modern Jewish Experience. Indiana University Press. p. 398. ISBN 978-0-253-00732-2. Retrieved 10 May 2018. Fast's protagonists in Redemption (1999) were drawn directly from his own recent experience. Ike Goldman, a widower and retired university professor, is like Fast a leftist veteran of earlier political wars; and Elizabeth (Liz) Hopper, thirty years Ike's junior, is like Mimi a depressed and abused former wife, who though a deeply religious, conventraised Catholic, contemplates suicide. Liz is talked out of jumping off a bridge by Ike, and both are "redeemed" by their new love. The novel, one ...
^ Watson, T. (2005). Contemporary Authors: New Revision Series. Contemporary Authors New Revision. Cengage Gale. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-7876-7894-4. Retrieved 10 May 2018. Driving through New York City one night, he sees a woman, Elizabeth, about to jump from a bridge. He talks Elizabeth out of her desperate act and, in the weeks that follow, finds himself falling in love with her. The two are planning to wed, when Elizabeth's ex-husband is found dead in suspicious circumstances, making her a suspect. Goldman does all he can to aid in her defense, but as the evidence against her mounts, his own doubts about her innocence increase. "The story moves ...

Keep. Works by bestselling authors such as Howard Fast, whose name alone is sufficient to sell a book, are usually considered notable by their own accord but, thanks to well-researched references provided by Sam Sailor, Redemption's notability is unquestionable. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Sam Sailor. James500 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After seeing this article's current state I changed my vote.
Mr. @Sam Sailor: Why don't you do this awesome job to other articles, too, which are nominated for deletion? Maybe I didn't search properly enough. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally overcome my laziness and source an article... Sam Sailor 21:58, 12 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Babie

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

Refrences provided are all passing mentions or not notable, and as such the article fails WP:GNG. Tried CSD but another editor pointed out the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is notable enough to prevent CSD. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reference to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is most certainly not just a passing mention, and, although it is not necessary for references themselves to be notable, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography certainly is. There are loads of further sources found by simply clicking on the word "books" in the spoon-fed search links above. The nominator seems to have a problem with evaluating the notability of serious historical subjects, as evidenced also by this deletion proposal. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography is almost always an indicator of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as Babie has an entry in Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Kid

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

Non-notable video game. No sources, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so a couple of potential proper reviews as sources: Honest Gamers and Nintendo Complete. I've seen the former used as a review, but I don't actually know the status of the latter, and whether it was a proper critic doing the review. If both are fair, then, amazingly, the game is probably sufficiently notable. If not, then I'd be inclined, though not certain, to opt delete. Someone neutral know the answer? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a review from the Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine, as seen here. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely brief review, would fail under WP:MENTION. Actual source would look reliable, just not substantial enough Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: The findings of Phediuk strengthen my stance of a Keep. I went ahead and added the reviews on the article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources mentioned above, it also has a review on AllGame and the MobyGames review page for it also indicates a Game Informer retrospective review from their Dec 2007 issue. So there's demonstrable RS coverage from several sources. Phediuk (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Phediuk: Thank you very much for your findings! I added them to the article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between the various reviews found this now has sufficient coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Red Door

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

Fails WP:NFILM due to no sources proving notability. Also has persisting neutrality issues. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The culturevulture source I believe is suitable, but in no way is sufficient under WP:NFILM on its own. There are another two actual critic reviews I found in my WP:BEFORE check, but they are both passing mentions. The NY times link only goes to the section, doesn't show up on a search within them, nor can i find it in google. Other sources are mix of OR, mentions and (indirect) duplicates. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changed vote courtesy of the additional source found below

Keep. Full review in The New York Times is here [26] also the Houston Chronicle [27] and Multichannel News [28], briefer review in the Chicago Tribune [29], short news item in The Advocate [30] noting that this film was part of a then-novel effort by Viacom to deal with AIDS/HIV issues. I have added these to the article and made some edits to ameliorate the POV issues.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources as identified above and added to the article such as full reviews in The New York Times and The Houston Chronicle, passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glamourogue

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

Fails WP:NMAGAZINE The sources are all identical press releases. Fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting WP:NMAGAZINE or WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Magazine was launched only in July 2017; sources to meet GNG have not been found. No suitable target for a redirect found. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sánchez de la Hoz

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as sources do not prove notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references. He has been written about as secretary to Pizarro and for writing an important account of the Spanish conquest of the Incan empire, as well as for his later misadventures with Valdivia. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a suitable subject for an article. It passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR for sure. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly keep -- Both a leading conquistador and a chronicler he was clearly important. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability is sufficiently demonstrated in the current version of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a quick search in the Spanish version of the article, where there is more scrutiny, supports the importance that is argued for here. Dentren | ^Talk 02:53, 15 May 2018 (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. So Why 13:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procera Music

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

No notability. Does not pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The sources Fiji Sun & Fiji Times may be questionable since they don't appear to be either reliable or notable. KingAndGod 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article should not be deleted, since Procera Music is the Oldest and largest Record label in Fiji, Fiji Times and Fiji Sun is also reliable, since both are the two main leading newspaper from Fiji and plus most of Fiji Related Articles use this as references. Krishfiji (talk) 8:22, 3 May 2018 (GMT+12)
Rename and selectively strip. All the independent coverage is not of the record label but of the label's award ceremony. No significant independent coverage of the label itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this isn't a terribly valuable article, but the topic is notable because of it's impact on a nation's musical culture as it is the largest (only?) record label on Fiji, and it verifiably produces, records, and distributes local music which I presume to be unique to that group of islands. It is therefore of encyclopedic interest to musicologists and music historians. That said, it would sure be nice if there were some discussion within the article on the history of the company, or how the company had made Fijian music available internal and external to Fiji. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle (monster)

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

Deleted PROD. This is WP:OR, there already exists an article on Gargoyle, this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Disclaimer, I am the creator of the article. "Gargoyle" the fictional monster type does not share a relation with the architecural element besides name and superficial appearance, so it wouldn't be fitting to have in that article. The appearance is actually closer to the grotesque. There is a mythological creature from where the "gargoyle" architecture feature got its name, but that has its own section at gargouille. It is certainly not original research or synth as all the sources are clearly cited and clearly refer to the monster as its own entity._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You write "the gargoyle is a fantasy and horror monster inspired by the gargoyle architectural element". So this article is clearly about the architectural element. This is no more than a "In Popular Culture" section made into an article. Your first source is an instruction booklet on how to draw mythical creatures. Another describes "The gargoyles of Notre-Dame" i.e. the architectural features on that cathedral. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not it at all. Are you going to merge List of swamp monsters into swamp because it was inspired by swamps? How about merging Nessie into Plesiosaur because one was inspired by the other. It's the same idea here. Putting it in the article about the statue would be incorrect, because it has nothing to do with the architecture element, despite being inspired by the name and appearance. A proper "in popular culture" section for Gargoyle would only include usage of the statues in popular culture, not the monster based on the statues. Gargoyle statues can't come to life, gargoyle monsters (or monster disguised as statues) can._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/merge - unneeded WP:CFORK. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any coverage of the monster on Gargoyle, so it's not a CFORK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

The monster is a gargoyle! There is coverage (as an animal, fantasy figure, legend) in the main article. It's the same subject so is a fork. Polyamorph (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same subject. If it was, gargoyle monsters would all look like gargoyle statues. They don't. They generally look like statues that aren't gargoyles. They are also only linked to cathedrals and the like part of the time, the other half of the time it's shorthand for "any monster that's made of stone and comes alive" regardless of where it is and what its purpose was._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's clear from the sources in the article that there is enough verifiable content in the article to support a modest article, i.e., the topic of the 20th and 21st century conception of gargoyles as monsters seems notable per WP:GNG. I can see arguments for both merging and for keep separate articles. To merge or not can be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. But in either case I don't see a policy-based argument for deleting verifiable material. Hence, keep or merge. --Mark viking (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the sources. One is a book that an instruction booklet on drawing mythical creatures. The other describes "The gargoyles of Notre-Dame" i.e. the architectural features on that cathedral. The sources are poor and do not indicate general notability at all. On the other-hand, I am not opposed to merging into the main article.Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a fork. Polyamorph, there is no discussion in the so-called "main article" about monsters which shift between stone and animated form. This trope (what might accurately be termed "Clark Ashton Smith gargoyles") is clearly inspired by but distinct from the actual architectural element, which is the topic of the "main article". Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gargoyle#Legend of the Gargouille does describe "a monster called Gargouille or Goji". The content you describe is not well sourced (see my other comments about the sources in previous comments above). Though I note that the sources have been improved literally as I wrote this. Polyamorph (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not describing a monster that shifts between stone and fleshy form, so it is not the same monster. A cursory search reveals literally dozens of references to gargoyle-type monsters in various media since C.A. Smith, including but by no means limited to Gargoyles_(TV_series) and Gargoyle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). You might want to re-think. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep either as a stand-alone article (currently 2372 B (391 words) "readable prose size") or IMHO better merged into the article at the base name (currently 6766 B (1101 words) "readable prose size"). In any case this subject is sourced, the Weinstock source looks excellent (I can read three of the four pages), and there are plenty of other sources that deal with gargoyles in 20th and 21st Century film, literature, games and so forth. It is not OR, and as it has not previously been dealt with in Gargoyle, it is not an unnecessary CFORK. If it was I, I would have stuck it in as a section in the base name article to begin with. But that can be discussed in name space 1. I have added a few sources to both articles. Sam Sailor 21:34, 11 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berik Ismail

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has represented Kazakhstan on a number of occasions internationally.--TM 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn’t meet any current guidelines - how about giving WP:GNG a shot? Rikster2 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there may be non-English sources, the most interesting things I have found have been allegations that he, along with some other kazakhs, may have lied about his age to compete in a younger age-group. What I don't find is evidence that Ismael meets gng at this time.Jacona (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG at this time, seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS and my search didn't show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 06:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Buenos Aires 1979

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

Nothing in the article suggests that it meets WP:NALBUM, and searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.allmusic.com/album/live-in-buenos-aires-1979-mw0000678039 at the very least. I do not have access to any offline reviews from that era, but suspect that there are some. Nominators should do WP:BEFORE and not base deletion on the current state of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Did do searches, as stated in the nom, and found nothing in-depth. Just the very short blurb in All-Music, and stuff on Non-RS (blogs, etc), and of course merchandising stuff, like Amazon, etc. WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't really a valid argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the AllMusic review, Pettinger devotes four substantial paragraphs to the album in his Yale University Press biography of Evans - I've added both potential sources to a "further reading" section of the article. If the article isn't kept, at the barest minimum it should be redirected to Bill Evans discography as a plausible search term. The trio's South American concert tour is still being written about 30-40 years later (930 words in Arthur Dapieve (20 August 2010). "Influência do jazz". O Globo (in Portuguese). and 3400 words in Joaquín Sánchez Mariño (1 April 2018). "Bill Evans y su insólita noche en San Nicolás". La Nacion (in Spanish)., so broadening to a new article about the concert tour or merging to a paragraph in Bill Evans are other alternatives to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2018 (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. Enigma^msg 19:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Govender

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrew Govender

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

Possible self-promotion. Winner of a dubious [31] male beauty pageant in 2012. Lots of dead citations. Did some minor acting, and YouTube voiceovers, with possible attempts at notability inflation in the article. Problematic since 2012 (see talk page). Fails WP:ENT. (I should have done a group nomination for these, but not easy to track orphans down.) Park3r (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- winning a fake beauty pageant is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Huck

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

No significant evidence of notability. The refs are passing mentions, gossip columns or references to films or TV programmes. Many of the listed programmes shown no evidence that he has been involved. He certainly appears to be a TV presenter who has appeared on other TV show but that doesn't make for notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FAIL in WP:NACTOR, Despite having a large audience, none of his programs were notorious. WP:NOTINHERITED Part of her fame is credited to the marriage.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Subject has non-temporary significant coverage in several news outlets. DanielGSouza (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is very famous in Brazil and there are articles about him in several other wikis. PMLF (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A host for two dacades on a well-known TV show named after him on a big channal in a country with 200+ million people, a show that is broadcast to 114 countries ... no wonder the man gets 500.000+ Ghits. The current sourcing is well above the requirements for meeting GNG/BASIC, and I have added a citation to an article in Forbes that features him. Sam Sailor 14:19, 15 May 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Irani

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about her, except in her connection as the mother of Meher Baba.Notability isn't inherited.Redirect sought, for there's nothing much merge-able to a GA.

Part of a likely walled garden around Meher Baba.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I tagged this page for notability I did not find anything that suggested notability. What I did see was a LOT of cruft related to Meher Baba being dumped into Wikipedia, Such as an article on a photographer who followed him around and took his photo a lot of time. Utterly non notable and deleted as such. She like much of the cruft surrounding Baba lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if deemed a likely search term. Per my earlier statement. Following an equally thorough WP:BEFORE search here as there, the same arguments in principle apply to this nomination. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was not only his sister but a major disciple, author, and a caretaker of Baba's history. In looking at these deletion nominations and links to talk pages it seems a coordinated effort is being done to remove related pages from Wikipedia. I am not in whatever cult the nominator is imagining exists (and it's sad that the nature of the language used in the noms and comments necessitates having to "distance" myself from the group in order not to be tarred with some kind of all-purpose brush), but am an editor of an encyclopedia which has a fine collection of Meher Baba pages which shouldn't be picked apart because of a seemingly communicated bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.Please provide the sources, since you've gladly forgot the main criterion of defending the notability of an article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The main criteria is "she was not only his sister but a major disciple, author, and a caretaker of Baba's history". Do you think the sources listed are lying about any of those things? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect >> Merge to Mandali per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Davy. Hoverfish Talk 14:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect target is definitely better than my proposed one but I guess an article can't be kept and redirected at the same time:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in her own right aside from her relation to Meher Baba. Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shireen Irani

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about her, except in her connection as the mother of Meher Baba.Notability isn't inherited.Redirect sought, for there's nothing much merge-able to a GA.

Part of a likely walled garden around Meher Baba.

To anybody who's asking me that why I'm here, without ATD stuff, I'm unwilling to waste precious time and resources in t/p threads like this. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect if deemed a likely search term. Per my earlier statement. Following an equally thorough WP:BEFORE search here as there, the same arguments in principle apply to this nomination. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Just plain garden variety delete NN, not inherited. Insufficient RS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent references, and no evidence of independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in her own right. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satyapira Padhan

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

The article's only "claim to fame" for this person is that he holds a Guinness world record for "Most Full Contact Punch Strikes In One Minute (one hand)" but that doesn't automatically confer notability in Wikipedia terms. Apart from that, he's just a student. Searches find nothing other than the world record and social media stuff. Neiltonks (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure Guinness world records are never an indication of notability and this one is pretty obscure - 1BLP at most. Article is full of self serving statments which makes me wonder who wrote this.PRehse (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse: and I'm wondering how the creator found this image uploaded by the subject himself a day before posting this article. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FITINDIA 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and the author appears to have COI. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically all of the coverage is about his setting a relatively obscure world record and previous martial arts AfD discussions have not considered these type of records sufficient to show notability. At best, the coverage falls under WP:BLP1E. The fact that the article's creator and main contributor is an SPA is a red flag, but not grounds for automatic deletion. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ...Nothing but a Dream#Paul Kelly Exclusive CD. Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly Exclusive CD

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

Shock, Horror. Yes I am nominationg a Paul Kelly ~~release~~ advert for deletion. Yes Kelly is very notable, yes most of his albums/eps/singles are notable. But that does not extend to every PR piece, advert, sellout that can be connected to him. There is nothing new on this throwaway piece of promo junk apart from the inclusion of a bit of Teltra spam. This is not independently notable. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not a single review in sight, a search finds a total of zero. Sourcing is a bunch of primary, listings and non mentions. 1. Discogs, user edited, not a RS. 2. PR that simply verifies its existance. 3. Another passing mention that simply verifies it's existance. 4.dead apra search (which never had enough details to verify anything here) which if working would verify the credits on other releases, merely listings. 5. listing that makes no mention of this release. Bombarded with sources to make it look more significant than it is. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ...nothing but a dream, which contains three of its tracks (on its US version), it was issued two days later and has similar cover art. The EP is a give-away to promote that album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect precisely as suggested by User:Shaidar cuebiyar above. Nice catch, by the way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ...Nothing but a Dream#Paul Kelly Exclusive CD as a categorized {{R to section}} is a proper WP:ATD-R outcome. Sam Sailor 13:27, 15 May 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harinarayana Chari Mishra

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

This police officer appears to do his job quite well, but there's no indication of notability here per WP:BIO, and I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:RS, just passing mentions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the fact that such positions are local operatives in a nationwide police force, I see nothing indicating that Mishra is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having received a 2010 Durgam Seva Padak does not count towards [[WP:ANYBIO]], and the other sources do not add up to meeting BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 11:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active Intelligence Server

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

This company was founded in 2018 and has 14 employees. The article is promotional, being just a business-listing created by an undeclared conflict-of-interest paid editor. The company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. samee converse 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. samee converse 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a directory. Zero indications of notability evident in the article. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, edit summary upon creation was "Changes made by admin with all the reference". That says it all. Home Lander (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously paid job, fails NCORP as well. Sam Sailor 11:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fall prevention. Nothing appears to have particularly changed since the previous AfD debate led to a (somewhat weak) consensus to merge. As the content of this article has **already** been merged to the target article and elsewhere, we clearly cannot delete this page due to attribution concerns. As no new consensus to keep this article has developed, and no real work has been done to solve previous concerns, the clear conclusion of this discussion is to actually implement the redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 17:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perturbation training

AfDs for this article:

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

First things first, I have previously nominated this article for deletion as the subject fails WP:DICDEF and it duplicates content from various related articles. I believe this should be redirected to Fall prevention but, as I've previously nominated the article for deletion I thought it would be sensible to put this issue out for a consensus first. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if the previous discussion's conclusion was the correct one according to the way the discussion went. The fact is, the same article with the same problems still exists and it really shouldn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. samee converse 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fall prevention, per previous AfD; in any case, a merge does not require AfD approval. When two articles cover the same ground a merge to fix the WP:FORK is the appropriate remedy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contains no real assertion of notability. The article has 51 citations, all from a single editor who's never edited anything else, which almost certainly means someone has put their university assignment essay onto Wikipedia. In other other words, it's WP:OR. Maybe merge the important bits into Fall prevention, but I assume the 2017 merge never happened because it was too hard, so I vote delete. Preserve the text somewhere like Talk:Fall prevention for anyone who wants to attempt the merge. Adpete (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep offline sources are a real pain. That said, I'm going to WP:AGF that they are legit. If that's true, then the topic seems to pass WP:GNG easily. That it is primarily edited by one enthusiastic editor does not bother me unless it can be shown that there is some kind of policy violation that I am missing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - Just so you all know, all relevant, usable content was merged into suitable articles over a year ago. No new content has been added since, so there's no point re-merging. As all content exists in other articles, there's no reason to keep this. Twelve months is long enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - After general cleanup, I just moved the entire risk factors section to Fall prevention#Risk factors of falls. After doing that, I realized that there's probably an opportunity for a merge of that info with Falling (accident)#Causes, but my move partially addresses the task at hand - the resolution for this article. Can anyone confirm that all other useful content is indeed preserved somewhere? As for the redirect target, I thought Physical therapy#Specialty areas would work, but perturbation training doesn't seem to fall cleanly under any one of the named specialties. Will have to think some more about this - suggestions welcome. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article includes a discussion that states the useful content was copied to other articles, over a year ago. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the discussion you mention - only a note that says the info was merged. Yet, none of the risk prevention info I moved was already there - I checked. What am I missing? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, that comment is in the first AfD discussion, linked at the top of this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buhay San Miguel

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

Article on comic planned for launch in September, clearly written by its young creator(s)s. I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A11, but there's no indication of notability per WP:GNG. The only mention I can find of it online is what's cited here: a press release by the sponsoring Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, and a close paraphrase of that press release in the political blog of a Manila newspaper. I've had to repeatedly remove unsourced bio details of minors from the article, so would prefer to see it deleted since there's really no claim to notability here. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the page The Night Apparition, a Wattpad story series by the same author. This one doesn't even have the brief nod from the church source that Buhay San Miguel has. These two, along with The Heart of Friendship, are all works by the Matias brothers, with the latter apparently deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/Brothers Matias. They might both be eligible for db-g4, but I haven't seen Brothers Matias so taking it to AFD just in case. Both articles were larded with unsourced details about the authors (minors), which I've removed. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any in-depth coverage to show either of these pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- it strike me that it is essentially an ADVERT. Launched September Which year? If it was last September, O would have expected some sources as to a past launch by now. If next September it failed WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. In re Buhay San Miguel: "will be launched at Manila International Book Fair on Sept. 18". Created a month ago in April + future tense = expected launch September 2018. WP:CRYSTAL failing [[WP:NBOOK]] and GNG. The Night Apparition fails NBOOK and GNG. Sam Sailor 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient sourcing fails WP:GNG, and also falls under WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 15 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Khan (TV personality)

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO. There's very little coverage of the reality show show in which she appeared in WP:RS online (though according to IMDB it ran for four years), and even less coverage of this presenter: all I can find are passing mentions on the CTV website, and in a few TV blogs. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an obvious holdover from the days when people used to think that all you had to do to get a television personality into Wikipedia was take her own "staff" profile on the website of her own employer, adjust the wording just enough to avoid being an outright WP:COPYVIO, source it to itself, and abracadabra. But that's not how it worked then, and it's not how it works now — notability is not contingent on what the article says, but on how well it does or doesn't reliably source what it says to media coverage independent of her own employer. But there are exactly zero independent and unaffiliated sources here, and even on a ProQuest search there's no particularly strong reliable source coverage about her to salvage it with. Note that I'm also bundling her cohost here, as his article suffers from the exact same problem. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INGOT Coin

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

A week-old cryptocurrency, described in a two-sentence press release larded with references to other warmed-over press releases. Calton | Talk 09:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does The Merkle report on any and every CC, this time it was SPONSORED and written by an unamed guest. Oh well, looks like we will have to take the "bridge between crypto and fiat" with a grain of salt bigger than Patrick Byrne and Tim Draper combined. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are all industry-sources, and the cryptocurrency ones are particularly bad. There are plenty with enough to satisfy WP:MENTION, but they just aren't reliable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Mason

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. I can't find significant coverage of him in WP:Reliable sources online per WP:GNG, just passing mentions in connection with his company. He was also president for a time of a notable political association, and was one of the first gay delegates to a party convention, for which he's had brief profiles in The Advocate: [32], [33] In both cases, WP:Notability is not inherited, and he's not yet independently notable enough for a separate article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominators arguments. Shows all the signs of being a self created and maintained vanity article. Lyndaship (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't even resemble what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like — it consists of three sentences which barely go any further than stating that he exists, and then linkfarms one of the most egregiously long WP:ELNO-violating lists of "every web page anybody could find with his name present in it at all, without regard to whether it's a reliable source or a primary source" directories I've ever seen in a BLP. This is such blatant WP:SPIP that I'm not going to even attempt to assess whether he actually passes WP:GNG or not — even if I were to extend him the benefit of the doubt on that, this is still so bad that the blow it up and start over from scratch treatment would apply regardless of his potential notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of articles, but none which together pass WP:GNG; agree with The Mighty Glen. SportingFlyer talk 21:42, 11 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Manafort

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

Non-notable director. All four sources in the article are about her father, with peripheral mentions of her. Ironically, in a WP:BEFORE search, the first thing I came across was a critical discussion in The Outline about this Wikipedia page! I found nothing about her or her directing in Reliable Sources. Her one film, Remember the Daze, has an article with a notability tag; the article cites one mainstream review, in Variety, but that is now a dead link. Google suggests it may have also been reviewed in NYT but I’m not going to waste one of my monthly views by looking at it. I have no opinion on whether the film is notable, and if people think it is, the Jess Manafort article could be redirected to it. In October 2017 the Jess Manafort page was PRODded,[34] but the PROD was removed.[35] MelanieN (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did find a brief NYT film review for "Remember the Daze". Do not believe that she is notable. Here is the link to the review: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/movies/11daze.html Rogermx (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand community web portal

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

**competent CSD patrolling that sought for an AFD. A7/G11 stuff. Somebody find me some source that covers the subject...Although, it's a fact that I'm unsure what the subject is....The title is about a web-portal.The lead is about a NGO.The external links are of other different websites....Article-creator has a self-declared COI. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external coverage, fails notability guidelines. Norcaes (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No additional relevant sources found, fails [[WP:NWEB]] and GNG, delete per [[WP:DEL8]]. Sam Sailor 10:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Attila album)

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

Album not notable. Nothing online or in the article's references to verify any notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After the AfD, an editor has added sources for an AllMusic review and placement on the Billboard chart, which the nominator would have found with a cursory WP:BEFORE search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. RF23 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting album, now sourced. Sam Sailor 10:31, 15 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping in United States Congress offices

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

Phenomenon does not meet notability criteria for an article. BilCat (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be significant. WP:NOTNEWS, plus WP:NEVENTS. -- Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP: NOR. Vorbee (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it isn't a recent phenomenon, has been discussed and "criticized" multiple times over the years. 2011[36],2015[37][38]. Apparently it has been going on since the 80s, and even banned by a Speaker at one point. Although now our current speaker does it himself. Not sure it needs it's own article, but it could be mentioned elsewhere in a parent article. I disagree with previous votes calling it original research, or some recent news event. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it's newsworthy, it doesn't become notable.No redirect. Also WP:TROUT the original author Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't have a COI? If you are working the Niteshift, you obviously wouldn't be sleeping in an office. Natureium (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or move/redirect) - Hot button issue in Congress that is receiving significant press coverage. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Bennie Thompson, List of acts of the 115th United States Congress or some other suitable target. Perhaps it can be moved to the name of a bill that gets drafted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the bill? That defeats the whole purpose here. The SUBJECT is not notable. Merely giving it a new name doesn't help. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:NOTNEWS and could be mentioned in a sentence or 2 in another article if appropriate. This is an interesting piece of trivia, not an encyclopedic event. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, not having independent notability. Not a viable redirect term - why would someone come to an encyclopedia to research something like that? Very low page views outside of the days of initial creation all but confirm this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that it's a thing some congresspeople have done is not the same thing as it being a notable concept in its own right. If a bill actually gets put forward, then that might well be an appropriate article topic — which could then briefly address this by way of background — but that doesn't mean this needs its own standalone concept article separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, unless these people are sleeping in the same office and having congress with each other (woo hoo). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer talk 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable topic. Although I could imagine including much of the material in a page on the compensation of legislators in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @E.M.Gregory:, such as Salaries of members of the United States Congress? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking the historic salaries of the legislative branch and complaining that some members have a cot in their office isn't even apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and airplanes. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And unless it's survived a deletion discussion of sorts, it's just an invalid WP:OSE argument too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eunuch#China. Consensus about this redirect of the term, no consensus about whether we should have a (differently titled) article about the "traitor" meaning. Sandstein 20:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taijian

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

Unreferenced, appears to be a blatant WP:POV fork. The term does exist in Mandarin, perhaps more on the Internet than in real life, and has in fact been used by both Pan-Blue and Pan-Green camps to attack each other. This article deals with only the (deep) Pan-Green perspective, and seems to be more interested in pushing this perspective than discussing this term. There are already several places for explaining such perspectives such as Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwanese identity. Also notice that there is no zh.wiki counterpart for this term. At any rate, Taijian should direct to eunuch, its primary use in English. Timmyshin (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to either Taiwan#National_identity or Taiwanese_identity#Taiwanese_opinion (which one is more appropriate). Just to take note that Taijian (as the disambug in the page show) doesn't mean eunuch but Taiwan traitors. In chinese pinyin, it is (tai1) （台）and not (tai4) （太). So there is no grounds for Taijian should direct to eunuch, which will be wrong. I feel that a merge of content can just be copied and pasted to the correct site as not much attribution purpose, then the page can be redirected to the community determined correct site. So redirect. Just to address POV, the article is neutral IMO and since it is used by Pan-Blue and Pan-Green camps which are the main opposition / rulling party in Taiwan, there can be no doubt a search in Chinese newspaper to give reliable sources where GNG can be met. But it doesn't warrant an article still. --Quek157 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC) updated --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part should be merged? Timmyshin (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article is just unsourced, if with sources it will be better. However, I don't have the time to source for it, but clearly this "With the beginning of democratic elections, Taiwanese nationalists now view Taiwanese citizens who collaborated with a hostile foreign power, especially the People's Republic of China, as Taijian. At the same time Chinese nationalists view these so called Taiwanese nationalists as hanjian for collaborating with a hostile foreign power such as Japan." with source can be merged with Taiwanese_identity#Taiwanese_opinion via copy paste with citation needed, plus "After the end of Japanese rule on Taiwan, many members of the Republic of China administration arrived on Taiwan with fresh images of Japanese atrocities on mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. As a result, anti-Japanese sentiment caused many to view the native Taiwanese who had been brought up and educated under the Japanese system as politically untrustworthy traitors. At the same time, some Taiwanese viewed the Japanese Empire favorably and held anti-Chinese sentiment, thinking the Chinese backwards and corrupt. As a result, many Taiwanese discriminate Chinese and their descendants. After the February 28 Incident in 1947 in which a nativist rebellion was suppressed, Taiwanese who collaborated with Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang party were commonly considered[by whom?] as Taijian." can be linked (if cited) to Taiwan#National_identity --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found the Chinese wiki zh page on this [39] Quek157 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The zh.wiki article was deleted via AFD: zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2010/03/21#台奸. Timmyshin (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the Afd, proposer asked for transwiki to dictionary, 1 vote for transwiki, 2 opposes but without any good reasons in term of notability, 1st 毫無營養的條目，刪 = totally non-edifying, delete ; 2nd 令人反感。= cause people to be disgusted, then the voter for transwiki commented "那漢奸這條目對你們而言，難道能算得上營養嗎？請先把個人的喜好放下，那名詞是台灣新聞裡慣用的名詞，確定能有一定的關注度。在維基百科內，負面性的條目不少，只有詞意解釋的，移動到維基辭典，何錯之有" - then hanjian to both is edifying, please put down individual likes, that term is regularly used in chinese news, verifibility and notablity must be there, it should be focused at. At wikipedia, negative articles are much, but those which are just dictionary should be transwikied, but this is not the only one, have more. (END OF TRANSLATION). This ended in close. This is in 2010. I will say this Afd (no malice to the mod) is too brief, no GNG argument, just delete. If by current day standards, it will be relisted and close as keep / transwiki. I will say notability are different for each wiki, English wiki we uses WP:GNG, I feel that if I search Taiwan news, there will be more than a few significant, independent coverage of the article. I cannot agree with Afd there equal to here especially with such narrowly discussed Afds. --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eunuch#China, which is the most common usage of "taijian". -Zanhe (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: can you please read the page and above my comments before suggesting such a move. This is 台奸 not 太监. --Quek157 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant as there's no difference in English (unless you add the tone marks). The usage for eunuch trumps all else. -Zanhe (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, if merged, the original page will be merged without a redirect. Page movers should know. I don't think we need a taijian redirect to eunuch page (such a page serves no meaning). I oppose such merges. I feel that my comments have been clear enough. So I will revise to just a comment. I will feel the best way to handle this is to move those citable materials to the relevant pages (with the context of taiwan traitor - explaned above), then the page to be deleted. Since no clear opinion exists, this is the only view I can give to this Afd. To make it crystal clear, I am neither from Taiwan (ROC - for extra clear) or China, supports the One China consensus (1992) but an ethic Chinese with native English, Chinese language writing and reading skills. This will be my take on this Afd and no more --Quek157 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, what is this Afd for, if merger or redirect, why to a totally different in meaning topic. If we are talking about the article to be deleted, then it must be evaluated based on notablity, suitablity and etc and all the policies are in. If we are talking about POV issues, why can't someone write it to be neutral. This topic, based on my assessment, is notable as argued above, but I think the content can be added to exsting pages, therefore, these are my proposals. If not might as well keep the article with citation needed. --Quek157 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more, I know this is a very politically sensitive topic, so I am very careful in my commenting. --Quek157 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your personal background does not really matter, only the quality of your argument does. My vote for redirect to eunuch is based on the most common usage in English sources for "taijian" according to Google books results. Merging the content (if sourced) into hanjian is fine, but that does not change the primary usage of the term "taijian". -Zanhe (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, taijian --> eunuch. But do we need such a redirect based on hanyu pingyin or not? I don't think so. I mentioned my background (and in fact my ancestors are from two different sides of the straits (the closest possible where artillery shells can reach each other) - can guess where already?) just to make sure I disclose my potential COI in this discussion as well as I am really neutral here. I agree with merging with hanjian (as Taiwan is Han anyway, based on One China Consensus)), but I don't think there is a need to merge given the little contribution history. Someone can just copy and paste. Since there is nothing to delete ultimately and even if you want taijian -->eunuch, given that you and the proposers are page movers, we can take this to the talk page and see which to merge, then why not then just copy and paste the relevant parts, then don't even redirect, just leave the page blank and marked as PROD. Why need to take this issue to Afd? Off topic :And one more thing that I hate the most is that when we are discussing the Afd, the author of the page is always not here for all the Afd I am in, and often this is due to the fact that they are newcomers and create and run (not for this case though) even if we do notify them, so I thank all the NPPs (which are you all). --Quek157 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) As Zanhe mentioned your ancestry doesn't matter, and nobody is questioning your COI or neutrality.

2) As Zanhe has shown, the primary use for "Taijian" in English is the term for Eunuch. I should probably point out that this term means "Grand Guardian" and was used in the official government bureaucracy from at least the 11th century to the 20th century. This topic thus deserves a standalone article (just like Grand Commandant, Grand Preceptor etc.) and there are several reference books like A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China that can support it. But we don't have an article yet, so redirecting to the western equivalent Eunuch makes the most sense. The point here is this usage trumps that of "Taiwanese traitor".

3) I don't think you are opposed to redirecting/merging this article. I agree that the zh.wiki AFD arguments look unconvincing, but I share their general concern that such terms are best suited for the Wiktionary. The term does exist in Taiwan, but so do 賣台賊 (Taiwanese traitor), 舔共伢 (Communist ass-kisser), 共匪 (Communist bandit), 皇民 (Subject of the Emperor), 滯台難民 (Refugee remaining in Taiwan), 台巴子 (Uncouth Taiwanese), 高級外省人 (Elegant Mainlander), and also Internet slangs such as 9.2, 覺青, 吱吱, 綠蛆, etc which I can't translate. The list could be endless. These terms simply demonstrate a political or identity divide in Taiwan as a result of Taiwan's unusual political situation, and are not each inherently encyclopedic. Another option is to create an article List of political insults in Taiwan, but sources are required. Timmyshin (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1. Thanks 2. I know that 隋朝，唐朝，明朝，宋朝 ( Sui dynasty ,Tang dynasty, Ming dynasty, Song dynasty) all have the kind of / sort of Grand Guardian . I also support a full article on 太监 is supportable as it noted. 3. I don't support such list as is just WP:LISTCRUFT. I am clearly not opposing any merger, but I am thinking of whether "Taiwan traitor" can have a topic on it's own. The subject have it's notablity that is what I wanted to say initially as your initial rationale is not what I am convinced of. The title is really sound weird to start of with. Why not we don't merge and redirect, which will cause a lot of problems as source text doesn't match the redirected text / merge. But just to move the page to "Taiwan traitor" + put it with citation needed + Afd it if needed, but do it with your page mover rights (I am not sure if both of you Zanhe / you) WITHOUT leaving a redirect. That will solve this problem ASAP. --Quek157 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC) In addition, I am real tempted to vote as WP:IAR delete without prejudice for recreation --Quek157 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Just to add, the tag is wrong is not secondary sources, it is WP:OR balantly. --Quek157 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin and Zanhe:, since this is for sometime and for non Chinese this is way too complicated, I will try to summarize the key points from this long discussion, do correct me if this is wrong:

The main use of taijian is Eunuch#China (tai "fouth" sound), an alternative can be "Taiwan Traitor" ("first" sound) sound - in hanyupinyin.
No objection for a redirect for taijian to the above main use
If properly sourced, no objection to merge to hanjian.

Therefore, my proposal will be like this:

Move this page to a separate page named "Taiwanese Traitor" and then put unsourced, let someone source it and then we then merge accordingly / let it stand
The original page a redirect to Eunuch#China will be there.

Any objections or comments, this will settle this as I don't intent to let this relist--Quek157 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mianchi County. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mianchi

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

Unreferenced, cannot find anything in English. Googling the Chinese name seems to suggest that this is the Mandarin pronunciation of the Cantonese name for Miso. Anyway, the primary topic for Mianchi is Mianchi County. Timmyshin (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

don’t delete. As-is does not make much sense as an article, but there are better outcomes than deletion. Restore the redirect to Mianchi County. Or a disambiguation page with that and Miso. Leaning towards the former, as can find no evidence miso is known as "Mianchi". The Chinese/Kanji chars may be the same but that is taken care of by the redirect 味噌.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is inadvisable, because Mianchi County is definitely the primary topic, WP:TWODABS or not. This can be verified by Googling "Mianchi" in GoogleBooks. Timmyshin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this very dry (not good for miso) text, you can see it History of Miso - Mianchi gets a couple of passing mentions as between variants.

You can also see it at Soup for the Qan - mianchi is mien shih (that's also in the first link btw. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid these passing mentions are not enough for a standalone article, and I don't see what is different between this and Miso (other than the name). Timmyshin (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Definitely looks like it is the Chinese variant of Miso - which, given the number of sources, amazingly enough does not include a variant bit. In any case, they are very similar and is merely a variant (and Miso is the overriding name, it just isn't complete yet). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mianchi County - primary topic. Mianchi (as miso) is almost never used in English, not even common in Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2018 (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 G7. Alexf^(talk) 12:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron M. Burns

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

subject does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Original author blanked the page. Acnetj (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Robert Scott

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

Simply does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, as per WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need an awful lot of sources to justify having an article on a 10-year-old, and I do not feel we have such yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2018 (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. This closure should imply no prejudice against recreating the article if the subject is elected, and I'm happy to restore the delete content in those circumstances (just drop me a line). Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John James (businessman)

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

Article was prodded, but was removed with the following quizzical explanation: "Notability in being one of the top candidates in Michigan for the Republican nomination." Fails WP:NPOL. Every source on here and every source I found in WP:BEFORE pertain to the Senate campaign, therefore expressly failing NPOL. No indication this could meet GNG on any other facet of his life than this campaign. IMO, the fact that it is only on the campaign makes it at least to some degree WP:PROMO too. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page can keep if/when he wins Senate election in Michigan. Outside his candidacy, he's not notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Move the page to the draft as it doesn't meet notability guidelines currently but would if he was elected. Acebulf (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you aren't notable for being an unelected candidate unless you otherwise pass WP:GNG, which he does not. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - obvious answer on notability as already mentioned above and in WP:POLOUTCOMES. Promo but contains some relevant facts - might as well keep it around in case he wins. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no "inherent" notability just for being a candidate in a party primary per se — and even if he wins the primary and goes into the general election as his party's official candidate, that still isn't an automatic notability freebie. He'll obviously qualify to have an article if he wins the general election in November, but as a candidate he's notable only if you can demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable for some other reason besides the candidacy itself. But this demonstrates no serious evidence of preexisting notability — even his business career is referenced not to coverage about him in the context of his business career, but to mentions of his business career by way of background in the candidacy coverage, which is not how you demonstrate that someone is notable as a businessman. (Since every candidate's routine campaign coverage is always going to mention their prior career background, every candidate would always be able to claim notability on those grounds as a dodge of their not having achieved notability as a politician yet — so making a person notable for their prior work requires preexisting coverage of that prior work in its own right, not just background mentions of it in the candidacy context.)
POLOUTCOMES also explicitly states that we do not hold onto candidate articles in draftspace pending the election results, precisely because we do not want draftspace to turn into the repository of campaign brochures that NPOL is intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming — if he wins the election in November, then an administrator can easily restore the deleted article with one click on a button, so the principle of not losing the work doesn't require draftspacing. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity - "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures " is not a fully clear statement.

It makes is crystal clear that losing candidates are deleted - but it does so in order to prevent establishment of precedent for a distinct category, it isn't actually specifically stated that candidates within elections are deleted. You may well be specifically right on the issue, but if so that aspect of POLOUTCOMES must be re-written to be clearer or it cannot be acceptably used as an argument. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the distinction you think you're drawing between what I said and what POLOUTCOMES says. It does not rule out articles about losing candidates "in order to prevent establishment of precedent for a distinct category", it rules out articles about losing candidates in order to prevent articles about losing candidates from being here at all. QED. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018. Major party candidates for the US Senate should be redirected to the wikipedia page about the election they are running for, if they are not already notable. The election page can include verifiable facts about the candidate. The proposal to draftify the page should be discouraged per Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If James wins the primary, that may propel him to notability. However even that is unclear, since with Michigan having a governor's election as well, most of the focus is on that race. People are not notable until they win an election, with very rare exceptions. Wikipedia is not the place for candidates to host their campaign brouchers, which is what it would become if we start delaying deletion until elections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, politicians have to be elected to be considered notable. Unless there is some other claim to notability, which is not the case here. Suggest moving to the draft space and restoring if he wins, deleting if he does not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. The way I looked at it was that there was sufficient notability based on coverage in non-local sources (which i could add more) and the significant endorsements he has received. However, I also get the points made above. Would it not be that he is notable until he loses?Patapsco913 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, notability cannot be lost - you either have it permanently, or you never had it. Poloutcomes (attempts) to set out that it doesn't matter how much electoral coverage someone has had (for almost all elections), notability also requires them to have won the election. POLOUTCOMES is supposed to indicate this as well for current candidates, but does a poor job at saying so. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 - I'm with Bearcat here regarding applying the lessons of WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's also WP:TOOSOON. However, since there's so much that's been done and the sourcing is decent, a simple redirect, proposed also by Enos733 above, keeps it from taking up space, yet makes it easy to bring back from the dead without having to bother any admins. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:02, 15 May 2018 (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.

[Harris_1999-1] Harris, Michael (29 June 1999). "New Twist for a Master Storyteller". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2018.

[Hoyle_1999-2] Hoyle, John Christian (12 August 1999). "There is a caring heart on Gotham's mean streets". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 10 May 2018. – via HighBeam (subscription required)

[Greenya_1999-3] Greenya, John (8 August 1999). "Thrillers". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 May 2018. – via HighBeam (subscription required)

[Gale_Research_Company-4] Gale Research Company (1999). Something about the Author. Gale Research. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-7876-3216-8. Retrieved 10 May 2018.

[Sorin_2012_p._398-5] Sorin, G. (2012). Howard Fast: Life and Literature in the Left Lane. The Modern Jewish Experience. Indiana University Press. p. 398. ISBN 978-0-253-00732-2. Retrieved 10 May 2018. Fast's protagonists in Redemption (1999) were drawn directly from his own recent experience. Ike Goldman, a widower and retired university professor, is like Fast a leftist veteran of earlier political wars; and Elizabeth (Liz) Hopper, thirty years Ike's junior, is like Mimi a depressed and abused former wife, who though a deeply religious, conventraised Catholic, contemplates suicide. Liz is talked out of jumping off a bridge by Ike, and both are "redeemed" by their new love. The novel, one ...

[Watson_2005-6] Watson, T. (2005). Contemporary Authors: New Revision Series. Contemporary Authors New Revision. Cengage Gale. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-7876-7894-4. Retrieved 10 May 2018. Driving through New York City one night, he sees a woman, Elizabeth, about to jump from a bridge. He talks Elizabeth out of her desperate act and, in the weeks that follow, finds himself falling in love with her. The two are planning to wed, when Elizabeth's ex-husband is found dead in suspicious circumstances, making her a suspect. Goldman does all he can to aid in her defense, but as the evidence against her mounts, his own doubts about her innocence increase. "The story moves ...

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]