Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 February	11 February >

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 redirect to Spanish profanity#Cojón. WP:SNOW czar 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cojones

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

Back in 2014, the article looked like a dictionary entry. Now, the article looks like a dictionary entry but shorter. Neither Testicles nor Courage mention the word "cojón" (and they shouldn't do it). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spanish_profanity#References_to_the_male_genitalia where it is discussed thoroughly. PamD 10:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per PamD. Britishfinance (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD, a solution much better than the current situation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD - the cojones meeting aside, there's nothing to say here that isn't better on Spanish profanity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spanish_profanity#References_to_the_male_genitalia per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Air Cargo Flight 504

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not notable cargo plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough. A commercial airliner destroyed and one probable death is close but an older aircraft on a cargo flight doesn't cut it. - Samf4u (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I will abstain from making a recommendation as to the fate of this article, as I do not know what I am about to point out means in terms of the subject's notability and want to leave that determination to more experienced editors, I do wish to make the community aware that unlike many other comparable incidents, this event was considered noteworthy enough to merit coverage on at least one national network news show. See https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/one-rescued-after-plane-crashes-into-ocean-off-miami-1439830083584 Pizzaguy875 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in this accident that makes it noteworthy for a stand-alone article, no passengers so nobody notable killed and nothing important hit, it is unlikely to involve a major change in regulations. Sad but cargo aircraft accidents are not that rare or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne. Cargo plane crashes are not so easily to find notable as are passenger airliner crashes. Edison (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, the C-131 still flying 63 years after the production run, over ocean is a tad interesting. However, I don't see all that much coverage for this crash and I strongly doubt there will be persisting continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was one fatality, alas, but this crash lacks notability, as harsh as that may seem.TH1980 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. There were only two people inside and probably only one died. Since this was not an important plane crash, no regulations, further investigation (mostly only basic investigation), safety redevelopments, etc. were done afterwards. And there isn't really much reliable information. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable. MA Javadi (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a rough consensus that most of the sources being cited in the pro-keep comments don't meet our guidelines for establishing notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgz

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

Lacks notability. There is plenty of coverage out there about Hudson. It is either in relationship to the Polish Gambling site, which is not really about him and more a BLP1E to the extent it is, local coverage about too many fans at a mall, promotional and non-biographical coverage of an appearance tour, or about his pranks from non-RS. There's lots of this coverage but the WP:GNG doesn't say lots of bad coverage adds up to notability. It says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. formatting in the original That is not threshold is not met here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Just noting that this article was legitimately recreated via the AfC process and was approved by Legacypac, who's highly trusted in this area, and that's why G4 doesn't apply here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed and as I noted at his talk page the "best" coverage, while still inadequate, has occurred since that AfD making a new discussion appropriate and necessary. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Swarm and Barkeep49. At any rate the last AfD was in Sept 2017 which is a long time ago in Youtube fame time. It was then deleted twice shortly after based on the AfD. I'm not thrilled that a 17 year old kid can be considered notable for talking about pranks on youtube but 8+ million subscribers and over a billion views seems to support notability under our current standards for youtube personality bios. I could not come up with a strong reason to decline the page and still operate within the guidelines of AfC where we accept topics that are likely to survive an AfD. I support having a discussion and decision on this case. A key question is going to be the reliability of some of the key sources. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If those numbers are correct, and they can be proven to be correct, then he is eminently notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are pulled in via some automated process so they are as reliable as any Youtube views and Subscriber counts. Yes you can buy views and subscribers but not that many. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "fame" and notability. We don't have SNGs based on Youtube hits. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have started promoting gambling to underage children via fat loot boxes, so thrown off the site. News articles in the London Times, Sun, and Express means the article passes WP:SIGCOV. Also on Kotaku. scope_creep^Talk 10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG has been met, plenty of reliable sources give this person significant coverage. It doesn't matter where the coverage is good or bad, that has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. Hitler has nothing but bad coverage in the media, that doesn't mean we delete his article. Dream Focus 14:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, I am saying that the quality of the coverage is poor (bad). I am making no judgement about Morgan himself. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was about to edit my comment, having misread things. Anyway, some places give him significant coverage[1] others just brief mentions. Dream Focus 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus The Sun is a depreciated source and so while I found that article it would not be considered reliable. The best sourcing comes recently around this gambling promotional accusation. However, that whole thing seems to suggest BLP1E more than anything, even where the coverage was SIGCOV of him and not just this incident in general. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Despite 5,540 articles using it, it was declared at the 9th RFC for it to not be a reliable source anymore after a lot of people voted one way or the other. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Sun (United Kingdom) Anyway, the BBC briefly talks about him at [[2]] and then interviewed him with Toby Foster at [3]. Having over a billion people see his YouTube videos and 8 million subscribers, there should be more coverage of him out there. Dream Focus 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Also BBC Panorama article from yesterday about Morgz' promotion of the lootbox site [4]. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator mentioned this AfD to me on my talk page during a separate conversation. The page is currently written promotionally, and his only coverage which might pass WP:GNG is negative WP:BLP for trying to get teenagers to gamble. Of the sources on the page, the Sun doesn't count, and most of the mentions are extremely trivial (though Polygon does call him one of the largest youtubers) except for the gambling thing. This may be overly sensitive or WP:TOOSOON, but I would delete or at least draftify on WP:PROMO grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance you remove the promotional content. The gambling aspect was at the very end of Youtube career and the coverage in the Time and Express is not trivial. There is plenty of other coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Express literally just prints his name. All I can see from the Times article is that he gets name-dropped. How is that not "trivial?" SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. For a media-BLP, not one single main UK media outlet with an article on the subject (never mind several per WP:GNG). The Sun is junk and not a suitable reference for WP. Can't even find a reference to the subject in the DailyMail (which is still low-grade, but if they are not picking up a UK-based "media celebrity", that says a lot about how little-notable he is). Youtube hits are junk (claim of a billion views and no mention even in the DailyMail – lol; I am surprised to see WP editors quoting this). The adverse press from running gambling ads on his site do not make him inherently notable, and in each case his name is just listed as an example with others. BLP's should not have to "contrive" or "reach" for sources of WP notability, especially when they are media-BLPs who therefore should have lots of good RS noting them; it should be very straightforward. For him it is not there, because he is not WP notable. Britishfinance (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is him on Youtube:[5]] with 8.3 million followers. This is the stats page [6] with 1.1billion views. As regarding the suppose trivial news coverage. The reason that it is not trivial, is that both the same names are mentioned in the express and times. Both the articles are in context. They are both about those two people. So they are not trivial. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe in youtube "one billion hits" land that arguement would work. In WP it is WP:GNG which requires significant independent quality RS to establish notabilty. This UK-based media figure – despite his "hits" – has none in the significant UK RS (nevermind outside of the UK, despite a material % of the world's population watching him on youtube ..... according to youtube). Even in the 2nd tier media-obsessed UK RS (e.g. Daily Mail), he is a ghost (the Sun is not even 2nd tier). Youtube hits are just an advertising scam, which is why WP ignores them for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia doesn't ignore them. On Wikipedia any value over 250k viewers is considered notable and it has been that way for more than 5 years. He has 8.3million viewers, which is well on the way to twice of population of Scotland, easily passing WP:GNG.scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scope creep Where do you get those numbers? I had looked a couple weeks ago for this kind of discussion and came up empty. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately even if there were some sort of SNG about the number of Youtube hits, you would still need to demonstrate WP:GNG. I don't care how many views he has if the only reliable secondary sources which talk about him only mention him in passing, as do the Express and Times. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if more reliable secondary sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barkeep49 The mans YouTube page. I did as well, and it was empty. I suspect he has made a deal with Google not to promote fat loot boxes and been allowed back in. He is certainly fully functioning now. Go to Youtube and search for Morgz. Hope that helps. As regards the 250k value, I dont know. Somebody passed to me donkies ago in a similar Afd. It is worth noting, that there are several 10'000's of articles of similar social media stars on Wikipedia that are considered notable. @SportingFlyer: Are you really positing the fact that social media stars, that are part of the biggest growth industry in the world when you included companies like e.g Twitch, Instagram are taken into account, would not be included within Wikipedia notabily criteria, that huge segment of society suddenly cut out and considered not notable, even though now they are considered the most famous and sought after group of people on the planet, even more so than models. It seems a bit odd that Wikipedia would make such a fundamental and basic mistake. Of course it is nonsense. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: I'm asking for reliable secondary sources which clearly demonstrate his notability to ensure there's enough here that's not WP:OR for us to write an article on him. No one is entitled to a Wikipedia article. If he's an important part of this culture, this should be very easy to do, but I haven't seen any source which passes WP:GNG yet. Even the BBC article barely mentions him. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Followers of youtube's made-up hits never seem to reconcile the made-up youtube fame with actual mentions in media RS. Don King was the master of seeing the public didn't want to a $10k purse fight (e.g. the actual purse), they wanted to see a $10m purse fight. Youtube has perfected his scam as a way of drawing traffic to their site. The "tell" is the disconnect between youtube's "hits" and actual notability; as this subject fails so spectacularly. Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is that. You cant write an article if there is no sources to validate the content. @Britishfinance: Those hits are making a lot of people very rich, and these people only live inside social media. The don't need old media to validate them, they don't care and they don't want it. Their whole online existence is concomitant on having a social media fabric to work and live in. They tried closed system at the beginning of the internet, and they were a failure. I'll see if I can find some extra sources. scope_creep^Talk 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old media only covers internet personalities if they slip up. They're competition. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The UK's DailyMail (which WP does not yet consider an RS for WP), is obsessed with UK-social media stars. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and yet on Morgz, nothing. The issue is not old vs. new world, it is just that Morgz's notability is faked. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The Daily Fail is not a RS as you say. I'll wait and see if Scope csn find any other sources. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And as I said, he doesn't get a single passing reference in even the DailyMail. Not to repeat this point again, but the BLP notability criteria should not be "gamed". There are too many AfD's of BLPs where the person is not the subject of a single main article in even a 2nd tier RS; and editors are trying to cobble together scraps of "passing references", mentions in 4/5th tier sources etc. to "contrive" a case for notability (what they are really proving is "existance", not "notability"). In the world of fake news (and fake youtube hits), having a BLP in WP should mean something. It should be something that it is worth spending our collective time on. Sorry for the rant. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @CoolSkittle: I found a couple of other articles about him. One was a news article on the former BBC3 news site, but there is really not that much in it. It discusses the loot boxes and a few other things. The other one is an interview and not RS. He is notable, but there wasnt a great amount of source to validate an article. Not enough anyway. I suspect there will be more written about as he finished his march toward 2 billion view and he gets older. He is certainly up there, and we should have an article, even from a historical viewpoint. This is the first generation of these types of people, and once it is gone. The guy is a whale, but not at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Scope creep, but am open to recreation if there are more sources in the future. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engage (organisation)

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

Lacks WP:N due to absence of WP:RS Jontel (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontel (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a failure of WP:BEFORE, presumably because this organization was more active in the 2010's (I used a news archive search,) and possibly because "engage" is such a common word that it's hard to search. I made a start at sourcing it. This organization has an online journal, which is widely cited in books including Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld, Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization, Indiana University Press, 2019; Boycotting Israel is Wrong: The progressive path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis, Nick Dyrenfurth and Philip Mendes, University of New South Wales Press, 2010; Dave Rich, The Left's Jewish Problem and others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi E.M., Thanks for your comments. I have looked on their website to check. It only lists five issues of their Journal, all in 2006 and 2007. It has a 'What they say about us', which contains a very limited number of third party comments, all undated. The website has only one or two posts a month, and none since October 2018. Finally, the article has been around for over 12 years, and no-one has felt motivated to add reliable sources until you did. So, I think, as an organization, it is effectively dormant, and I doubt that it was ever significant. The founder, David Hirsh, has a page, though that is fairly limited, too, and perhaps Engage can be given a section on that. Jontel (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:HEY. The thing is, a great many old, unsourced topics turn up at AfD, where they get often get sourced, upgraded, and kept. Let's wait a few days and see what other editors find, some may be familiar with this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure, though I see there have been two previous unrewarded prompts: the 'Stub' notice for twelve years and the 'needs updating' notice for six years. This Engage website seems to have been a relatively brief attempt to launch a publication, and I have little sense that it attracted much notice. In the relatively small world of anti-semitism/ pro Israel studies, they seem to quote each other a lot for mutual reinforcement, and you impressively found some examples of that, but I think that is it. Yes, happy to wait till the end of the week as you say. Jontel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have continued coverage.[12][13][14]. Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two of these are from 2006/7, when the organization had just been founded and was publishing a Journal. The third is current but it is a historical overview, referencing the organizations's 2005 founding. So, I think that WP:SUSTAINED is an issue, as well as WP:RS. I have looked at all of the references mentioned and those already in the article. Almost all seem to fail WP:SIGCOV because they are passing mentions, limited to a sentence. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Wikipedia:Notability The single exception is the JPSR paper which describes a number of organizations in an encyclopaedic manner. Jontel (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument that the publication was short-lived, is not supported by policy. We host articles on many short-lived publicaitons (cf. '47 (magazine), African Observer, Atari Age.) Also, brief sources can be WP:SIGCOV, as I judge the passage that you added to the page in a book by Andrew Pessin to be. and WP:HEYMANN, although the page was poorly (virtually un-)sourced wehn brought to AfD, it is now sourced to WP:SIGCOV and more can be added, including material from the several books mentioned above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that. I think this is a useful discussion. On the topic being shortlived, the distinction I would draw is that the publications you mention were hard copy publications which appear to be aimed at a significant readership. By contrast, each of the five issues of the Engage 'Journal' is a handful of quasi academic articles added to a website. It had neither the impact of a popular publication nor the rigour of a peer reviewed journal and I suspect had limited readership. The passage in Pessin, which was just a sentence, does directly state Engage's purpose, personnel, aim and single achievement, but this is really a rare example and is about the 2005 AUT boycott decision, which is covered here Academic_boycott_of_Israel#Association_of_University_Teachers, as are some of the other mentions of Engage. Engage could be mentioned on this page. As you say other books tend to cite articles from the website rather than discuss the organization: if that was all that was necessary to be on Wikipedia, every academic book and paper would deserve its own article. It is a better article than before. I still think Engage had very limited impact, scale, activity or recognition per se and that for a short period. It never got much above being an expression of David Hirsh and I still fell that mentioning it on his page would be sufficient. Jontel (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jontel, I see that although you began editing in 2012, you made only a handful of edits per year until 2018. It can take time to get used to this place. In particular, it is not unusual for new users to find the standards for notability at AfD confusing, I can see that you have found them so [15]. But the sources found and added to the page during this discussion on the page meet our standards for keeping an article on a niche organization and its publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could see the rationale for the challenge. Good work has been done improving this since. I can see that there are plenty of current references in the UK media on David Hirsh/Engage (best way is to google for David) and the organisation is still appearing in UK major media. Britishfinance (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Thanks for participating. In the Wikipedia’s article references, the four from UK major media date from 2005 and 2006, when the organization was launched. Hirsh is still active and is quoted occasionally in the major media, but this coverage does not mention Engage. He is being interviewed as an academic and author and this activity is covered in his own article. See [16] Jontel (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is Guardian in 2018 referencing Engage (and more members than just Hirsh). The case is not a slam-dunk in terms of notability (e.g. your nomination is not that unfair), but nor is their case contrived. There are sufficient references in good RS that continue to recognize this group. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well found! I was looking only for combinations of Hirsh with Engage, which are rare themselves, so missed this reference. It only mentions one member, Richard Gold. I cannot find any other mainstream references of him in relation to Engage. The phrase in the source you found is “As Richard Gold, a party member active in the anti-racist Engage campaign, put it in his submission to…” so I do not think that it contributes much to notability, on the Wikipedia:Notability grounds that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Gold, along with Miri Vogel, has been mentioned as a main contributor to Engage, replacing Hirsh in this role at one point, which suggests to me that few others were involved. There is little coverage of her or of Jon Pike, the other founder, in relation to Engage. I doubt that there is much, if any, coverage, in relation to others connected to Engage, if such people exist. I have tried Engage AND antisemitism, but there really isn’t anything recent. In essence, I still feel that this was a genuine but limited and shortlived Hirsh project that never did much or received much notice and should live solely on his article. Jontel (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concern. @Jontel: I notice from your edit history that there is advocacy for Jeremy Corbyn against concerns of anti-Semitism, for example here and here. You have also been blanking your Talk Page (which is allowed in WP), which removed examples of articles you have been trying to write supporting left-wing groups against concerns of anti-Semitism (Draft:Labour against the Witch-hunt). This can raise concerns against you (and your proposed nomination of this article, a group dedicated to confronting left-wing anti-Semitism) of WP:COI. You need to be careful here. Britishfinance (talk)
Comment I am happy to be able to reassure you on this point. You have partially misread my edit history on Corbyn, incorrectly assigning a passage to me that had simply moved due to an edit I made. Other edits you highlighted, which I did make, simply contextualised reported criticism of Corbyn: they were not advocacy. I did blank a notice on one draft article, not several, on my talk page, to keep it clear: your talk page only goes back a few days. Creating an article on a group is not supporting it: it is what Wikipedia is for. I have perfectly good neutral reasons for nominating the Engage article for deletion, as you yourself volunteered earlier today: “I could see the rationale for the challenge.“ So, for you then to disregard WP:AGF is surprising. I am sorry that I cannot accept the arguments you are putting forward on Engage. I am listening and responding factually, but I find your points often ill founded. For example, you say “the organisation is still appearing in UK major media” when that has not been the case for over ten years, except for one passing mention. You say “and more members than just Hirsh” i.e. the plural, when only one member is mentioned. Finally, WP:COI is hardly relevant here; I expect you mean WP:ADVOCACY. I have no connection with any left wing group, if that helps. Certainly, the other contributors on this page also edit related articles, which is only natural. Jontel (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, as it reads now, is referenced enough to meet WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Steel

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

This looks like WP:TOOSOON to me. I can't find additional references and what there is does not look like WP:SIGCOV to me. (Second attempt to XfD - apologies). Tacyarg (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Definately too soon. Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leading ladies (game)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a notable game. Even a single source not founded on this page or google. Xain36 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No notable Ghits either. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG per nom. User:Skirts89 22:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has zero sources.TH1980 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Halloween (franchise). The existing section Halloween II (2009 film)#Cancelled sequel might be a better merge target—if so, discuss on talk page. czar 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 3D

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

This was a film that was never made or even started. There’s an entire plot summary that is clearly someone’s fanfic. Normally I’d just redirect it to the Halloween franchise page but when that happened before it was reverted. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main film franchise article. StaticVapor message me! 04:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentioning the aborted project on the main franchise page wouldn't do any harm.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main franchise article as not independently notable but is verified so is useful content for that article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main franchise article per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of top trending Google Search queries by year

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. All the content is based on a search result and looking at the links it is unable to obtain data from years prior to 2018. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information can be obtained through Google and simply re-hosting that info without adding analysis or additional information makes the list pointless. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an indiscriminate listing of statistics. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I had half a mind to nominate the article myself when I came upon it. wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll have to agree with the users above, this list fits the definition of a fanlist without enough reason to be. Garlicolive (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This list adds no additional utility over the primary sources that it is derived from (the original lists published by Google Trends). — Newslinger talk 14:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed Vevo videos

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am pretty sure this list was split off from List of most-viewed YouTube videos, but before anyone goes to delete that , YT and video counts are notable topics at least in the past. But the same attention was never made to the Vevo service. (Vevo is an official outlet that gets mirrored on YT for music publishers for official music videos; its not open content like YT. So this is just a list for list purposes with little coverage in secondary sources, so deletion is appropriate. --Masem (t) 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. Basically duplicates the most viewed YouTube video list. SITH (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xain36 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire list is redundant as most of the most viewed videos on YouTube are Vevo music videos. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube channels

AfDs for this article:

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as CRUFT, NOTSTATS and general notably rules. Wikipedia is not a repository for real time trivia updates. doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A blanket removal on these YouTube lists, especially considering their notability and page activity and views, is not a good idea. Zoom (talk page) 22:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no idea why we would want to delete this. While trivial, these sorts of lists are very common for other stuff, and I see no reason why YouTube should be an exception. This list is clearly of interest to many readers (>1000 views daily) and the encyclopedia would not be improved by deleting it. It also seems to be fairly regularly updated. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 06:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is notable as the topic of most-viewed YouTube channels been widely mentioned in many reliable sources. Also, standalone list articles such as this are allowed on Wikipedia, as per WP:STANDALONE. And it's not at all comparable to the Hot 100, as that's a weekly chart, whereas this is a list of most-viewed channels of all time. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since YouTube is the internet's second most-popular website, and with the massive amount of videos uploaded to the website, to be the channel whose videos combine to be the most-viewed on YouTube is a tremendous and notable accomplishment.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge- When it comes to number of subscribers, merging does not sound like a bad idea.I understand the concerns of the proponent of the AFD, but I disagree that updating this list is too much of a chore, considering that people are passionate about youtube views this would seem like a non-issue, and in fact, when it comes to subscribers this info has to be somewhere, it if of high interest. In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of most liked youtube videos and list of most viewed youtube videos) this could add too much information to the main article. Garlicolive (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN due to the widespread coverage of the topic, most recently in the form of the PewDiePie vs T-Series dispute. Matters of taste are not elements of notability, and statistics are permitted if given context and palced into tables for ease of sorting (as is done here). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Satisfies WP:LISTN). Has enough secondary source coverage. Also, a big mass deletion of all these YouTube articles doesn't seem to be the best idea. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- People are very interested in these statistics, people like myself. I love these stats stuff, and pages like Wikipedia have a nicer layout than social blade, so I prefer to use it, please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.49.176 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 75.97.49.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I use this page, and many pages similar to this, all the time. I really don't see a reason for you guys to get rid of it. These pages are extremely useful resources that keep people like me coming to Wikipedia, and there are no satisfying alternatives to these lists anywhere else on the internet. 208.66.10.137 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 208.66.19.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep – Unsurprisingly, the ranking of users on the internet's second most-trafficked website is a frequent topic of coverage by major news sources, especially within the past year, and certainly at a level high enough to satisfy WP:LISTN and to exceed any reasonable threshold for being encyclopedic. The first of Wikipedia's five pillars states that the website combines many features of almanacs, and a core component of almanacs is the inclusion of a variety of useful lists. Their presence is appropriate for Wikipedia provided that they are relevant, noteworthy, and verifiable; I believe this list meets all three conditions. The list is neither excessive—as it is limited to channels with at least 21 million subscribers—nor unexplained, and as such does not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The list is no more a compilation of "popularity data" than any other statistical ranking of mass media, such as the list of highest-grossing films or list of best-selling albums. No explanation is given as to why "maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about." The comparison to the Hot 100 is unfounded; whereas each edition of the Billboard chart lists the best-performing songs in a single week, this list documents the channels that have gained the most subscribers over the entire fourteen-year history of YouTube's subscription feature. Despite the implication otherwise, I have not once in my thirteen months of overseeing the list witnessed any behavior that struck me as the product of paid editing or the work of a user with a conflict of interest, apart from low-effort spam—attempting to promote people's small channels—that is almost always reverted within minutes; since becoming semi-protected last summer, even those edits have completely ceased.

It should be noted that none of the reasons for deletion given by the nominator were made specifically for this article. The editor has simply copy-and-pasted the exact same paragraph to at least fifteen AfDs they have made for internet statistics-related lists, and I find this behavior to be somewhat troubling. Life of Tau 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could explain my vote, but LifeofTau has commented virtually every reason you need to know as to why it is wrong to delete this page.0737290632t2x273n (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Covered extensively in reliable sources and very high-traffic article. Satisfies WP:LISTN as does many other articles. Managed by many users. No legit, real rationale have been brought up for deleting. And also the many points LifeofTau brought up. Vivexdino (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per reasons above. MikeOwen ^discuss 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – References are used (from multiple cites), the data is verifiable, this is no different than most lists on Wikipedia, and there is no real reason to compare it to the Hot 100. I see no absolute reason for this article to be nominated for deletion in the first place. Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 14:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to closing this AfD as a Keep. Created this list a few a years ago, and now more than ever, the list has strong grounds to be maintained on Wikipedia. Soulbust (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. X-Editor (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I guess someone is just bored. rayukk | talk 08:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. -- Flooded w/them 100s 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube videos

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts of this list with YouTube. A smaller part of this list, preferably a “Top 10”, is useful since it reflects trends on the site (supported by secondary sources). I vote for merge over “Keep” because most of the information is original research and original statistics that are meaningless to most readers. For example, who actually cares about the Top 10 videos of 2005? Most of the videos are music videos that never became the most viewed video at any time on the site. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote to Keep. I listed my opinion on the matter in the comment below. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. This used to only cover the top 30 videos, which reflected how mainstream sources covered that. YouTube video counts are still significantly covered in the news, so a short list of the top videos make sense. But unfortunately, editors want to take this out to huge numbers which is just beyond what we should be doing. --Masem (t) 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reducing the list from 100 to 50 videos and delete the list "by year of release"--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is. I would not reduce the number of videos—please not! and I would keep the "By year of release"—the most interesting part of the article in my view! Eventually, I would transform it in "List of most-viewed YouTube music videos". --Checco (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would need to see more arguments against notability in order to support this AfD. I think the subject does pass notability standards. Skirts89 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of subscribers) this could add too much information to the main article, and considering that this information is notable by itself, I am against the deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but upgrading the list from 100 to 200 videos. Dieter Mueller (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article subject has recieved substantial media coverage, and meets WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LISTN. It has plenty of secondary source coverage. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as is. Meets WP:LISTN. Has plenty of secondary source coverage. Don't reduce. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have changed by vote to Keep. Gathering from previous comments, I agree that parts of the list, especially the top couple of videos, certinately meets WP:LISTN; especially through the quote "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability". However, I would argue on either condensing the list or simply not expanding it, as adding more to the list would be incredibly overwhelming to certain readers. In addition, I still hold on to my previous argument to remove the "Top 10 videos" per year section, though. BUT, I like the Historical most-viewed videos since it is well sourced and graphed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to reduce the list--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As someone who analyzes YouTube statistics, the article has been a useful tool that contains important information which I have found difficulty looking for on other websites. I see no problem with a top 100. The top 5 most-viewed videos by year table is useful because earlier years do not have any videos on the top 100, so it is informative to see what videos are being watched throughout all of YouTube's history. The historical most-viewed videos table is important to include because of what a tremendous accomplishment possessing the most-viewed YouTube video has become. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping the historical most viewed videos, but disagree with keeping the “Top 5 most-viewed videos by year.” One has historically significant videos, but the other (for the most part) doesn’t. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "keep". I suggest adding "Top 5 most-viewed videos by upload year". That would provide insight on content creation more than content consumption. The current "Top 5 most-viewed videos by year" is historically important insight on content consumption instead of content creation. This way we could have both aspects. As mentioned in earlier discussion, these statistics are time-consuming to gather, but all verifiable, so any misconduct is addressable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.195.59 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — 212.149.195.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:LISTN and has a large number of trusted second sources. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but per some of the comments above, trim the list. I suggest the removal of all videos with fewer than 2 billion views, with perhaps an exception for non-music videos. For videos with fewer than 2 billion views, but a minimum of 1 billion views, prose and/or a category page can be used for summary. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. These videos are at the forefront of one of the most visited websites in the world. It allows people to see the most popular online content over time and some of the most popular videos on the internet ever. Keep the top 100 as it is and keep this as its own page. The page has very useful information. Don't trim it back to 30. Why delete useful information from Wikipedia? 15:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.52.203.131 (talk) — 104.52.203.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Well that was easy. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube music videos

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of this is identical to the “List of most-viewed YouTube videos”, since most of the most viewed videos on YouTube are already music videos. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate page per above, CSD A10 can almost apply here. funplussmart (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. Duplicate of the main list. SITH (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best merge into List of most-viewed YouTube videos, as it is an unnecessary replica of that page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I see no reason this should be deleted. However, this can easily be merged with List of most-viewed YouTube videos. This duplicate can be better suited on that page. Dannyyankee12_{let's talk} 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with list of most-viewed YouTube videos. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked YouTube videos

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Berean Hunter--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very interesting list! People look at Wikipedia exactly for this kind of stuff. --Checco (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a suitable reason for keeping an article--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would have to see more convincing reasons to delete an article like this. Whether or not it's a magnet for COI editors is not an issue - we need to make a consensus based on notability. Skirts89 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the concerns of the proponent of the AFD, but I disagree that updating this list is too much of a chore, considering that people are passionate about youtube views this would seem like a non-issue. In theory the article could be merged, but then again, the main article has a lot of info already, if the article is to be merged considering the other AFD (list of most liked videos and list of most subscribed) this could add too much information to the main article, and considering that this information is notable by itself, I am against the deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating this list is not a problem because I update this list every day, but if I stop who will update this list?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, I took a look and yes, you update the list a lot, a timid thanks in the name of Wikipedia (I am only an unknown user). You update many times per day, I would say that even if the list was updated once a week it would be already good enough, but I'll have to acknowledge the hard work you did, yes, updating the list can be a ton of work, but I would still vote against the deletion. You don't need to update so often, I always thought that people had some algorithm or bot to help them get the numbers (I admit, we are in 2019). You are definitely overwhelmed. How was it before you took over, did it pass weeks without anyone doing any edit? Garlicolive (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the history yes, the list was updated only sometimes and maybe not very well--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has plenty of lists like this, and people often go to Wikipedia to find this kind of information easily. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect the list can be automatically generated from the Api and there are undoubtedly several companies who publish the information, and several utilities that will be able to collect it. So what your left with is a dynamic list which needs continually updated with daily maintenance and when the maintainer leaves, the list is going to be out of date with days or even hours. Seems to be an entirely wasteful effort to create something that can be created on the fly. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry that was a bit crass. Perhaps the person doesn't know that. Apologies. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Per WP:LISTN. Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above, Wikipedia has several lists like this so I don't see why this specific list needs to be removed. It's notable enough to stay and there's no issues with it that can't be fixed. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research and an impossible-to-maintain dynamic list. Also, the criteria is unclear -- most liked of all time right now? At a point in time? I don't see how the presence of this list benefits the reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe we should keep these lists because like many have stated it includes enough references and sources. BrDen (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a respiratory for every ranking chart you can think of, and also I suspect there's WP:OWN problems going on here too. Ultimately this is not encyclopedic content and goes against notability policies. doktorb _words^deeds 11:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Since it is all about money every way imaginable has to be used to generate it. Let's get Wikipedia to make "lists" {YouTube, facebook, etc..) that editors may in good faith like and support so keep the most watched videos very up to-date. People will click on the videos through Wikipedia and Google (YouTube) can then make money on the generated advertising revenue. In 2015 YouTube was expecting to make $2 1/4 billion on advertising ($4 billion in 2018) so maybe higher by now? A video, to considered as have been watched, according to standards set by the Media Rating Council and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, "when at least half of its pixels are visible on screen for at least two consecutive seconds.". Pretty smart if you ask me. All editors in good faith need to do is keep the list dynamic and up to date, and it seems it would generate more money through Wikipedia. If that is true then add the other lists probably being kept "up to date". I could be off-base but it is worth considering if Wikipedia is actually striving to be free of commercialism. Maybe others have input on this? Otr500 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When a YouTube user likes a YouTube video, he/she is indicated that they enjoyed it. Since YouTube is the second-most-popular website on the internet, possessing a video that millions of people have voiced their approval of is a tremendous accomplishment. The relevance of YouTube and the importance of liking a video on the site make the article informative. The list of most-liked YouTube videos. as well as other lists relating to YouTube, allow Wikipedia to serve as an almanac. Therefore, lists like these are what Wikipedia can be about. It is appropriate for Wikipedia as it is limited to relevant videos (4 million likes or more), and verifiable because the citations contain links to each video. The claim that the list is nothing more than popularity data is invalid as the same applies to List of highest-grossing films and List of best-selling albums which are both exceedingly informative articles, as is this one. The comparison of this list to the Billboard Hot 100 is also invalid as that chart is based on data collected each week, while this list is based on data collected from YouTube's entire history, thereby making it a historical one. The Billboard Hot 100 is also determined by data that it's own company does original research into. Had this article been based on original research, it would be deleted. Since it is based on data collected by another source (YouTube), there is no issue. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of people make money, except Wikipedia. However, three editors arguing that other stuff exists is not supposed to be valid reasoning. In the over sixty-five references to YouTube, not with any substance but a link to the Videos themselves after watching or skipping the ads, would seem to be a problem. I am not sure why there is any concerns of copyright violations considering this. Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect because unlike the list of most-disliked YouTube videos, having a list of the most-liked videos is easier and more predictable. The top 40 list consists solely of music videos, while the ten non-music videos listed have fewer likes, and would best be summarized with prose. (For example: PewDiePie versus Mr. Beast having a like wars, YouTube Rewind, etc.) Billboard now has the Streaming Songs chart, which includes YouTube data in its methodology. We can use that list or the SocialBlade list instead of relying on Wikipedians frequently updating an article. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per WP:LISTN list articles are appropriate when there are secondary sources covering the general category; not every entry needs to be covered in these sources. Here, there are several media sources giving coverage to the most liked YouTube videos. While this article has citations to a quite frankly obnoxious amount of YouTube videos, there are a number of secondary sources spread out over a few years. The sourcing is however a bit weaker than other recently nominated list of… articles, so I’m only voting weak keep. Also, I’m not concerned with original research, since at worst the article is sorting numbers from largest to smallest. This is a routine calculation requiring no independent thought, so I don’t think it violates our no original research policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a hot topic related to one of the Internet's most popular website. There's no reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the result will be "keep" I propose to reduce the list to the top 30, like List of most-viewed YouTube videos--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very useful article which recieves a large amount of daily visits. TheMasterGuru (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What if someone needs to view this for quick information. If it's deleted, then where are they gonna get the information? This article also sees a lot of attention, especially by me. BashurMan (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. YouTube is one of the most popular sites in the world, so I don't think this article will have any problems being kept up to date. A testament to this should be this AfD discussion having the most replies of all the recent "List of most..." AfD nominations. Besides, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with an article needing to be updated frequently. Why not take advantage of the digital format to keep information up to date? Additionally, the all like counts should be updated at the same time editnotice and the "as of" date indicator at the bottom of each table helps keep this a rather high-quality article, and certainly encyclopedic in my view. Much nicer than the disorganized messes over at List of virtual communities with more than 1 million users and List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users. WP:NOTSTATS is not a concern because the context is properly explained, and YouTube likes are hardly a complex statistic anyhow. Ahiijny (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). Editors show near-unanimous consensus to keep the list because it meets WP:LISTN, and argue that the high utility of the list is a stronger consideration than the nominator's WP:NOTSTATS argument. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 13:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, a stand-alone list meets notability requirements if the set (but not necessarily every indivdiual component) has recieved coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, something which has clearly been met here as evident by the lede sumamry. Additionally, this article was nominated for deletion two years ago to the day. The decision was to keep based on these grounds. Further, the list has become even more notable sicne 2017 due to the 2018 YouTube Rewind fiasco. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well said, Spirit of the Eagle, concerning the fiasco and the notability of it deleting this article is unwise. There are no issues in updating this article, no lack of notability. I won't even touch merging because considering the other ADFs it would clog the main article, an additional article like this is needed. Garlicolive (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Roll 3d6 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Even if YouTube actually removes the dislike button, we should still have this. SemiHypercube 02:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this up, it's important information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.96.42 (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — 216.126.96.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as above. Cypp0847 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Per WP:LISTN. Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, and 174,475 pageviews from 22 January to yesterday shows that this page is important. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more prose, such as year-based "History" sections, that better explains historically disliked videos. Also, explain that "~YouTube Worst Video of All Time~ vote 1 star, leave comment" refers to the star-based rating, which was later changed to thumbs up/down. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a hot topic related to one of the Internet's most popular website. There's no reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Very useful article which recieves a large amount of daily visits. TheMasterGuru (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sheer amount of dislikes to a YouTube video has been noted by many popular sources. These include the Rebecca Black's Friday, the controversial Call of Duty trailer, and the most recent YouTube Rewind. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is important, and notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPS2004 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the heck do you want to delete this page!? The amount of dislikes came from popular sources and they are constantly updated. There's no way it could be wrong, unless if it was, but does not mean that this is pointless.ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)ROBLOXGamingDavid[reply]
Keep per above. This topic has plenty of media coverage and is quite popular on the Internet right now. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheMasterGuru. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked Facebook pages

AfDs for this article:

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This info is mentioned in secondary sources and is in line with WP:LISTN Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article itself cites numerous secondary sources that were published over a span of a decade. The article complies with WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one source verifying the validity of the list and order. A few secondary sources about some of the pages is nothing without this and considered original research. Ajf773 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in article are enough to pass WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate WP:LISTN. With respect to WP:NOTSTATS, the article does provide context and explanation (there's actually some interesting content here about the phenomenon of fake likes), so I don't think that's an issue here. Problems with original research or improper citing are not grounds for deletion. Ahiijny (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked online posts

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following this criteria shouldn't all "List of.." articles be removed? I fail to see why this article is singled out. Nixinova T C 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't as there are others nominated for the same reasons. I gave policy reasons for deleting and you gave none to back up your keep or address my points.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, it is incomplete because it probably doesn't include enough posts from TikTok/Douyin. Also, TikTok posts are hard to cite because the Like counts are only viewable through the app. – Monkeyfume (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, unverifiable and ever changing stats. Also a very poor example of cross categorisation. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found no evidence that the overarching category is notable. There are many sources for the most liked YouTube video, Instagram post, etc., but nothing for the most liked posts across all websites. Additionally, there is no way to cleanly compile all internet posts into a single list like it is with posts on a single website, so this list will by definition require original research to fill out. Additionally, there are an utterly massive number of websites across the world where its possible to "like" a post (some of which are more accesable than others), so I have serious doubts that this original research will be particularily accurate. TL;DR: the article violates WP:LISTN, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:V. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this discussion results in "delete" could I have it moved back into my userspace instead? Nixinova T C 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that would be an appropriate use of userspace, since the article has little chance of meeting the various policies I previously cited. Regardless of our policy though, this was interesting to read and I’m sure there is somewhere on the internet that will accept it. If you can find a suitable location, I’d happily change my vote to Transwiki. Maybe check Everipedia: they currently lack this article and don't have our notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Liking" an entire video on YouTube is different than "liking" a simple Instagram post. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, unlike the other existing "List of..." articles, this format is a much more unusual construction that I don't see being used very often at all. It's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. From a cursory google search of "most popular posts on the internet of all time", I can find reliable sources discussing the most-liked Instagram posts, most-popular Reddit posts, most-popular Tweets, most-popular Tumblr post, most-viewed BuzzFeed posts, most-popular Imgur posts, most-popular Facebook posts (in that order), but none that compare posts across multiple sites. I could find this Mental Floss article, but it compares websites like Lifehacker and BuzzFeed, not the usual social media suspects. There was this BuzzFeed article that talks about a service that compares images across Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and Flickr, but it doesn't actually list them in that article. So I don't think this article would pass WP:LISTN. Ahiijny (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-retweeted tweets

AfDs for this article:

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am against the deletion considering that this article passes the notability criteria. There was another list of the most liked tweets that was deleted because BTS and Obama dominated the list, making it a BTS-Obama fan list, but this article does not suffer from those issues. People come to this article with interest (surely even I, who disliked that I lost the timing and was outside the lottery of the japanese billionaire, can acknowledge that, let's be reasonable, just because he paid with money does not make his tweet any less valuable, you can't always win in life, right?)Garlicolive (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:NOTSTATS rule prohibits excessive and unexplained statistics. This page is not excessive and every entry is explained rather thoroughly. 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.208.136 (talk) — 67.176.208.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Wikipedia is the source of information. Some time ago I actually wondered what are the most liked or retweeted tweets and there is this perfect article showing how it is, without sources and explanation. Not only does it meet notability criteria but it's also an intersting piece of information. Keep, keep, keep. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stumbled across this AfD from googling "what is the most liked tweet of all time". The concept of most retweeted tweets meets WP:NLIST. I don't see why the list of most-liked Tweets was deleted either; I'd think that these two would easily meet NLIST, especially for a social media site as popular as Twitter e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]). Compare List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-liked YouTube videos (currently also up for AfD), List of most-disliked YouTube videos. Ahiijny (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the list obviously changes perpetually... there are MORE than enough reliable sources and significant coverage for it. And in this decade, hate to break it to you, this kinda stuff is encyclopedic. That’s the way the entertainment industry is these days. That’s why respectable publications constantly report on it. Trillfendi (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have you checked WP:LISTN? I would need to see a stronger argument in order to support this AfD. Skirts⁸⁹ 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Trillfendi, regardless of personal objections, the list has importance in the entertainment industry, linking news articles about it would be easy, the more views a video has, the more publicity it receives (and breaking records of the most viewed in the 24 first hours counts a lot) the more it spreads by the youtube algorithm. No one would claim that a video being on trending was unimportant. Garlicolive (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list meets WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a disambiguation page: one that links to List of most-viewed YouTube videos, and another that redirects to a section on a Facebook article. As Vevo now redirects to YouTube, the most-viewed YouTube article suffices for that purpose. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete: This is a redundant list as long as List of most-viewed YouTube videos is update like it is. All of these YouTube lists are pretty much updated daily. At some point enough editors will figure out that the multitudes of all things "list of ...", that are predominately YouTube, is just spamming YouTube under a ruse of different closely related titles. Where does it stop? "List of most-viewed online videos in the first 36 hours", "List of most-viewed online videos in the first 48 hours", by the week, or by the month. If ZERO sources make up this specific list, no matter how much we like it, how many references, or !votes to keep, how is it not a definition of synthesis? Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours was started at the same time. One of the options is merging to the list discussed here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:LISTN. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is very useful in organizing the most viewed viral videos within the first 24 hours, especially when many valid sources comment on that trend. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.141.232 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — 116.71.141.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I don't understand the "rapid changes" the deletion nominator is talking about. This list is totally different than a "most followed" or "most-viewed" page. It is NOT updated daily... These stats are permanent until a video amasses a larger amount of views in 24 hours, and that seems to be pretty uncommon. This list will certainly not be updated daily or rapidly. Maintenance wouldn't be a problem— especially with reliable sources reporting about it. Heartfox (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping this page. Within that camp the preferred course, albeit narrowly, is to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. Trailers are a subset of videos. SITH (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, no sources to confirm this is an accurate ordered list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New entries get many news reports, see e.g. Google search Avengers: Endgame 289 million. Also large reader interest with 435000 views in the last 90 days.[23] Otherwise merge to List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. It would practically be a keep and move since 19 of the current top-20 would be trailers, and the exception is also a promotional video before a film release. Individual view counts are sourced. Ajf773's concern might be addressed with {{Inc-up}} or a note. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. merge with a list of top videos is not useful, I search a lot of information related only to movies and this list is always useful, for example, now i wanted to compare the trailer of frozen 2 with the most viewed the first 24 hours, that's why i was looking for this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.176.122.154 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:VALINFO Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. - Brojam (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the creator of this page, I wanted to seperate the more commercial trailers from the videos that mainly become popular online (such as music videos and original viral videos). If this page were to merge into "List of most-viewed online videos", then all of the top videos would all come from movie trailers. On the one hand, it organizes all of the most viewed movie trailers of all time. On the other hands, all of the views from the music videos would be hidden by more popular film trailers. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge into Trailer (promotion). That page already has a list of most viewed total and most liked on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.141.232 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC) — 116.71.141.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not a terrible idea, but it's easy enough to just transclude it onto the page Primefac (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. However, I think the merge should result in both tables being kept as-is; neither page is large, and given the huge discrepancy between the two lists (only one non-trailer has more views than the lowest trailer) it should be important to keep the trailers separate from the non-trailers to keep the information from being lost. In other words, there's not much point in arbitrarily having two similar lists on two different pages. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus clear that article passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Twitter accounts

AfDs for this article:

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this passes even basic notability standards such as WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Skirts89, Notability isn't sufficient even by what you cite...check the last bullet point, "perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I will have to see some more convincing arguments for deletion in order to support the AfD. Skirts89 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A large number of studies have been performed on Twitter accounts and interaction, many of which have focused on the most followed Twitter accounts. Additionally, there has been a bit of news coverage (although its far less impressive than the journal articles). I beleive that WP:LISTN has been satisfied. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Satisfies WP:LISTN (and even WP:GNG). Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Top Twitter accounts have been the subject of significant and longstanding RS coverage and analysis. Maintenance of this particular list is rather light, checking once a month on current rankings. Finally I have seen no evidence of UPE/COI editing here, and there is no edit warring to speak of. Nomination reeks of WP:I just don't like it. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:LISTN. This is not a top-quality source check, but I found [24], [25], [26], and especially ~~[27]~~ (just kidding) — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to satisfy WP:LISTN. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. Created by a sockpuppet for these purposes.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Only source appears to be a self published one. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very interesting list! People look at Wikipedia exactly for this kind of stuff. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a suitable reason for keeping an article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A10. Duplicates the main Instagram list. Would not be averse to a redirect. SITH (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, the main list already serves its purpose, one this specific is trivial listcruft. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 01:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, arbitrary list. talk to !dave
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a mirror of SocialBlade, and also because Instagram changed its data collection policy to exclude non-business accounts for public statistics. Where are Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, the Kardashians, the Jenners and more? Since they use personal (not business) accounts, we see NatGeo, Nike, Victoria's Secret and more getting higher ranks on this "top accounts" list. Just scrap the list, and confine this to a small paragraph on Instagram's page. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The category of Instagram "business accounts" is an arbitrary one; there is no need to track them separately from regular accounts. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—seemingly arbitrary distinction. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie McCray

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

Subcategory award insufficient to meet PORNBIO andd interviews and non rs do not count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Agree with nominator on failing WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Diordiychuk

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

Glamour model who does not meet the GNG. Interviews or nkn-RS are not enough to source a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Noorullah Jalili

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

Declined at afc possible paid editing, fails WP:GNG Facebook, Youtube are not reliable sources Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came across this article while new page patrolling and was just considering how best to proceed with it when you nominated it for deletion. It currently has almost no reliable sources, is promotional in tone and reads like an election advertisement. He may well be notable so I had decided to reduce the article to a single sentence stub. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're running as candidates in elections they haven't won — he has to win the election to be deemed notable as a politician, and otherwise qualifies for an article only if he can be shown to have already gotten over a notability criterion for some other reason that would already have gotten him an article anyway. But this is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to demonstrate that — four of the seven references are YouTube clips or Facebook posts, which are never reliable sources for Wikipedia content under any circumstances, and one of the three that are real media is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else. So none of those sources contribute anything toward demonstrating his notability at all. Which leaves us with just the two sources about his declaration of his candidacy — but every candidate in every election can always show two sources about their announcement of their candidacy, so that is not enough to claim that having media coverage would exempt him from having to actually pass WP:NPOL by winning. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments above. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing RS of note; highly promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A9. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hum dono ek rahiee

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Also appears to be an original composition. —teb728 t c 12:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Based on his edits, The creator appears to not know wikipedia policies. This article at the least qualifies for A9, if it is a song. Daiyusha (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No! A9 applies to musical recordings not to the lyrics of songs themselves. Probably the subject of this article has not been recorded. —teb728 t c 13:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolr

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Allied45 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References currently in the article clearly don't establish notability. I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to add to the article to establish notability. Deli nk (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG among others. No notability. Skirts⁸⁹ 22:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Lifehack and Lifehacker items are basic listing notices and not in my opinion sufficient to demonstrate notability, nor are searches finding better. (The schoolr.com front-end subject of the article appears distinct from the schoolr.io tutoring Q&A site and the Italian schoolr.net tuition site for which the article was briefly repurposed, both of which would also fall short of notability.) Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re3Group.com

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. Allied45 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability (can't even find reference in the main Irish newspapers of Irish Times and Irish Independent); is also very promotional and poorly referenced. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the arguments put forward by nom and Britishfinance. The only news coverage that I can find is that which followed a jobs announcement in 2008. And perhaps this piece - the subject of which is the subject's CEO/founder, rather than the subject itself. There is nothing to indicate that there is enough coverage to meet the levels expected by WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. COI and PROMO overtones are also a concern. Guliolopez (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Friday Nights

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

A band that does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, possibly also created by a band member as self-promotion. Allied45 (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add there are no sources at all in the article Allied45 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:MUSIC. Skirts⁸⁹ 23:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. article also cites no sources. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Not an easy band name to search for, but I can't find any reliable sources or any indication that this was anything more than a WP:YAMB from the late 2000s that formed at school, and never really went anywhere apart from playing some local gigs – they don't appear to have released anything more than the two EPs and one single mentioned in the article, none of which clearly had any lasting impact. The article creator was a SPA who almost certainly was the band's lead singer, as his username is the same as the lead singer's followed by the initial letters of the band name... this article was probably created as promotional material for the group. Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable. Wikipedia has a lot of articles on non-notable bands of this ilk mainly because their "era" coincided with the period when promotional SPAs were at their most prolific. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mher Khachatryan (artist)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Second time for AfD for this subject who failed notability in 2017, and I don't think much has changed. There are suspect references (that went nowhere) to an "ArtPrize". Article is a long list of his exhibitions, so there is also a COI issue here. Britishfinance (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is poor, and nothing more found in a search. Most RS are about a single "artprize" exhibition. There's no breadth of sourcing here nor in-depth items that would allow me to easily extract the notability of the artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Author) I admit that the article was previously deleted due to lack of media coverage. However, the artist and his works have presently been covered in several places by the worldwide media such as Metro (British newspaper), Booth newspapers, VZZM, Agos (Armenian newspaper), Golos armeni (Russian newspaper). It definitely meets WP:GNG.-VishalSuryavanshi89 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sourcing is poor, and the public vote at ArtPrize is not enough to cover notability in and of itself. Also, I recognize at least one vanity gallery in the list of exhibitions. [28][29][30]. --Theredproject (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author). I have added some of his popular artworks information which makes him more notable. Also added more RS media from leading publications.VishalSuryavanshi89 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while there's issues with the overall source quality and inclusion of unnecessary content, the Metro [31] and Golos Armenii [32] articles include significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metro UK is not an RS source - it is very low grade (I would delete it as a source in a BLP). Can't speak to the other source as it is in a different language, but doesn't seem much better.Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on Metro, I was unaware of that. I'm not particularly familiar with Golos Armenii, but they clearly have a public editorial staff [33] and don't appear to have any obvious editorial problems, which means that for uncontroversial subjects like artist bios they should be considered reliable. It also seems like at least one Armenian-language source that has been provided [34] has some coverage and may be reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Golos Armenii is also not an RS (would never merit a WP article). This is a 3rd nomination for an artist with WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and WP:PROMO issues. We should have at least a major RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, chapter in an independent book etc. All we have are scraps from un-notable websites or free newspapers in the London Underground. He needs a WP article to get notability (and it relentless in pursuit of it). It should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mher is well known for his painting dedicated to Armenian genocide. His work is widely published in several art magazines and newspapers. Collection of his paintings can be found in several gallerias and museums in USA. His initiative Art To Thank is widely appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1724:6D34:4193:4FBA:EC64:E3A9 (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no reference to him in the WP Armenian genocide article; nor can I find any significant independent RS making such as statement regarding such a painting.Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Artist who has clearly distinguished himself in his field --5.170.38.11 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you provide a reference for that (we seem to be getting a wave of IP-editors). Britishfinance (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I already voted above, but I was able to find this additional Russian-language piece [35], which also appears to be an RS, although it also cites the Metro UK piece. I'm unable to search effectively in Armenian, but I would be shocked if there wasn't additional RS coverage in the language, given the coverage in Russian-language Armenian media. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember, this subject has been largely based in the U.S. since circa 2000. There is virtually no coverage in any U.S. media. I found a Grand River Rapids radio station article discussing his work [36]. Metro is a junk publication in the U.K. and not suitable for WP (the Daily Mail would be way above it, and that is saying something). For an artist who spends a lot of his time in the U.S., he is a ghost. Britishfinance (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as Britishfinance notes, there's definitely whiffs of UPE here, and SPAs seem to love this AfD. Much of the coverage appears to be incidental on the Metro coverage and per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Metro, it's unreliable. SITH (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closers. Read this AfD carefully. 3rd time this article re-appeared on WP (deleted twice before). Issues of WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:PROMO. All "keeps" bar one are IP-editors/author. Rosguill has provided some references, but any reading of them shows that they are not clear RS. There is no RS from a significant newspaper, tv network, independent book, or chapter in an independent book on this subject. Nothing; nor has there ever been in past AfDs. Subject needs WP to get notability – it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Simes

AfDs for this article:

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure back in November. This is still an advertorialized article, created by the subject's own colleague in violation of our conflict of interest rules, about a filmmaker who has no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claims here entail awards from the non-notable small fry and/or "buy yourself a fake award for public relations purposes" classes of film festivals, not from major notability-conferring film festivals on the order of Toronto or Sundance or Berlin or Cannes, and the amount of media coverage that TheDomain added at the time of the original discussion is not enough to get the subject over WP:GNG: the stuff that's substantively about Tom Simes is entirely local to his own hometown, while the stuff that expands beyond the purely local all just glancingly namechecks his existence in the process of being about other people he worked with. So this simply is not sourced well enough to get Tom Simes over GNG, but nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination; nothing here that is notable; unknown films winning un-notble awards. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Subject is not notable. Skirts89 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, total failure of all criteria at WP:FILMMAKER, doesn't appear to meet the requisite significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass generally either. SITH (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lourdes 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Washington's 26th state senate district special election

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

An individual local election is not inherently notable. No sources or explanation article why this one is. Reywas92^Talk 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State is not local. This is an election to a state office rather than a county or city office, and state senators are inherently notable. Perhaps merge into preceding general election article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 2012 Washington State Senate election could be an appropriate place to merge this as an election to the same legislature. Even under an assumption that the people, who may receive ongoing coverage of their legislative activities, are notable, the election is not. There are 7,383 state legislators in the US who may themselves be notable, but each election held every two or four years is not notable individually as inherited from their participants. Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete it? User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State elections are generally notable, and special elections that caused a change in the majority composition of the legislature are definitely notable. This one did receive enough coverage from outside its immediate local area (similar to the 2017 45th district special) that it can warrant a full article. It's a bit too soon to kill this one off. Sounder Bruce 08:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lourdes 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girlpope

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

Notability Gccwang (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See this Buffalo News search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the Buffalo News articles noted above (of which there are quite a few), there is also significant coverage of this band in AllMusic (where they have their own biography) and reviews of one of their releases, The Whole Scene Going, in AllMusic and Exclaim!. Cheeses of Nazareth was also reviewed in Option magazine. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nice research completed by Eastmain and IntoThinkAir. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eastmain and IntoThinAir have shown sigcov which passes WP:BAND, I've also found quite a bit in offline sources such as CMJ New Music Report. SITH (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Crunchies

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

I noticed that this content really doesn't deserve its own article a while back (going as far as to merge everything here to the Ice cream cake article recently. When User:Zaki Naggar posted on the talk page yesterday that he also expressed concerns over this, I went ahead and AfDed this now.

I've done a WP:BEFORE and noticed that there are a significant amount of articles on this subject so while one may argue that it passes GNG, I do not think this is notable. I would like to hear more on this, and if enough Keep votes come in without any Redirect/Deletes, I'll withdraw the nom soon.

I must point out, however, that the coverage on Chocolate Crunchies is 90% just articles on how to make them, use them, or ingredient lists provided by companies like Carvel. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you already merged the content (step 1 of WP:MERGETEXT), then continue the merge by creating a redirect (step 2 of WP:MERGETEXT), both for attribution and in case anyone objects and wants to revert. There's no obvious reason here to stop after step 1, and the only other editor who has touched that article or talk page since 2015 has supported your merge. I encourage you to continue being WP:BOLD by withdrawing this nomination and finishing the merge with a redirect per WP:MERGETEXT. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ND-500. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LED (editor)

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources to satisfy WP:V, let alone WP:PRODUCT. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will try to find at least one RS, so we can merge/redirect content of this article to another one (eg. Sintran III or Norsk Data - which already mentions it). Similar AfD about PED closed as redirect to Norsk Data. Pavlor (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I uncovered no useful English press, but it does seem like it would be applicable in particular for the ND-500 page. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ND-500. Not notable in itself, but there's some salvageable content relevant to the aforementioned page and redirects are cheap. SITH (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, sources provided demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rzepin train disaster

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

There isn't sufficient coverage in reliable sources to confirm that this event happened. While it is possible that the incident occurred and was censored by the government of the Polish People's Republic, we lack the actual evidence in reliable sources to make that conclusion, and Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the absence of reliable source coverage. The lone reliable source cited in the article briefly mentions the event in the context of an article about other Polish train accidents, but also specifies that there is no confirmed evidence of the account beyond hearsay. Googling the Polish title returned a bunch of forum results but no significant coverage in RS–editors with more proficiency in Polish may have better luck. Less than reliable sources report that there was an attempt to memorialize the disaster, but that this attempt was called off due to a lack of evidence that the disaster occurred. Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster, a similar incident that may or may not have happened and may or may not have been censored, is distinct in that regardless of whether the event happened or not, there was significant coverage in sources from outside of Poland, and thus there is more coverage about both the event and the possible cover up. No such coverage appears to exist for the Rzepin incident. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as owner of the article As the owner of the article, im fine with its deletion. I tried to find sources, but couldn't find a reliable. This incident is very obscure and most of the sources are unreliable. Feel free to delete it. --Cientific124 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after seeing that people have added new sources that establish notability to the article, my deletion suggestion may be disconsidered.--Cientific124 (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No English language sources; the only ones are in Polish. Not notable. Akld guy (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, non-English sources are 100% acceptable provided that they're reliable. The issue here is that there doesn't appear to be any coverage in RS of any language. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sources appear to have been taken from the Polish article, The best I've found is this which states it's a rumour - An overall Google search brings up words like "apparently", "rumoured" and "allegedly" but there's nothing that says Yes this happened or No it didn't,

Given Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster exists (and too is alleged) I honestly can't support deleting this - Whilst sources for this aren't great I feel it's odd to delete one and not the other although as I said the other article has better sources than this. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the difference between these two articles is that regardless of whether the events happened or not, Nowy Dwór received attention in reliable sources and thus is notable; even if we somehow found evidence that conclusively proved that Nowy Dwór didn't happen, it would still be notable because of the existing coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - If there was a train crash where 150 to 160 people died, it would be notable! I think the searches for this are being done in the wrong way. Is this the same one at Upi.com - "160 died in train wreck, Rzepin, Poland, July 9, 1952"? The date is different. Karl Twist (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a poorly written article. Needs to be improved. Karl Twist (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for references. Because the incident may be in Poland. It's going to be more searchable in that language. Now Rzepin train disaster may be the correct title for Wikipedia but that doesn't mean it's going to be very searchable in that name. Might I suggest that editors who are interested to help, try some variations of the incident. Also some Polish speaking Wikipedians should prove to be a good help. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some links to peruse regarding some of the !votes above include WP:OWN and WP:NOENG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several sources which establish notability and have added these to the article.--Pontificalibus 08:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The earliest available reliable source is the 1953 Britannica book of the year which states that it was an "unconfirmed report". Other references also state the same date byt specify it was unconfirmed. I think this is somewhat like the Lost Cosmonauts. We won't know what is the truth, but the description of the incident itself seems to be notable. I think it is fine for Wikipedia to state it was an "alleged incident" and describe the same.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lourdes 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ngao (weapon)

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

Not sure if this is a hoax or not, but most of the English Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, and the few that aren't appear to have got their information from this article. From what I can tell, Ngao is simply the Thai word for halberd or Guandao. In fact, the Thai article th:ง้าว appears to be about the Guandao, or some other Chinese weapon (not a Thai one). Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book Phil Bridger linked is a publication of the National Museum at Bangkok (I couldn't find their collection online). I'm not at all an expert on weapons, so I can't help in deciding if this is different from, for instance, a halberd. One commercial site which once sold such a weapon (https://www.ashokaarts.com/shop/rare-polearm-from-thailand-dha-blade-and-ankus-) refers to a similar weapon at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. Looking through the Leeds collection, the closest thing I can find is an elephant goad, which could be another appropriate merge/redirect destination.. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Definitely not a hoax. Not similar to the halberd. Very similar to the guandao, though I'm not sure whether merging is warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:,That's right I don't believe it's a hoax, but may be merge is the answer Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article contains (ง้าว,ของ้าว) which translates to Halberd but it doesn't appear to resemble any shown at Pole weapon. I would never consider merging unsourced content as that is just transferring issues. Add to that some Admins don't consider "merge" a part of AFD even though the lead states "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged...". The description in the article seems similar to the fu tao ngao (tiger-head hook sword, pp.26) which looks similar to the long-handled broadsword minus the hook (pp. 25). If there is a connection then there is a reference but if not then delete as unsource-able. Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you getting the translation as "halberd"? Google Translate is rubbish, and should be disregarded. The subject is clearly not unsourceable, as a source has been given above. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I hesitate to !vote keep because I would struggle to bring the article to an acceptable standard. That said, the translation as halberd seems to have a couple sources, which lead me to believe that it is a bad translation. One, in a number of similar to identical google books based discussions of Krabi Krabong, "ngao" is said to translate to "halberd" (see [37], [38]). Two, in Richard Cushmaitn's translation of "The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya" published by The Siam Society in 2000.. The Royal Chronicitles of Ayutthaya. The Siam Society, 2000, which is discussed and criticized here.[39] My current inclination is that given the variation in what ngao refers to, a short page like the current one with some information about some of the various usages might be nice (usages spanning from "long handled sword" and maybe "halberd"[40] to "war scythe"[41]). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: @ User:Smmurphy if the subject does translate to Halberd then why not merge and redirect? Otr500 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from what User:Smmurphy wrote that reliable sources disagree about whether this should be translated as Halberd, so this needs thought rather than a simplistic solution. And a Halberd was a medieval European weapon, so existed in the days before globalisation. This means that the same name is unlikely to be appropriate for a Thai weapon used by warriors on elephants, which were not indigenous to Europe and almost unknown there. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as there is an issue whether this can be merged/redirected to halberd how about a merge/redirect to a section in War elephant that can also discuss other elephant mounted weapons? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the name exists but the translation is confusing and certainly muddied with the info from User:Phil Bridger. Even "(ขอ)" doesn't translate to anything of sense. To merge anywhere without transplanting issues the dubious references would have to be used so I am not sure what that would accomplish. Otr500 (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you say, "Even ขอ doesn't translate to anything of sense." ขอ literally means "hook", i.e. bullhook. There are two versions of the weapon. the plain ngao, which looks more or less like the guandao, and kho ngao, which is a ngao with a combined elephant hook. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There don't appear to be grounds for deletion, and whether or not and where to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Phil has shown it's clearly not a hoax, and the nominator hasn't queried the notability, so there's no case to answer. SITH (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As to whether to merge or to keep. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Web

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

Struggling to establish WP:GNG. Can't find a reasonable list of significant quality sources independent of the subject. The very few that are around, are also dated (almost 5 years old). Doesn't seem like the concept/idea/website ever really took off, and now seems dormant. Britishfinance (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Semantic Web as a small section. The Argument Web seems to have been floated around as an academic theory in reputable circles, but the papers are sparse enough that a full page isn't warranted. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of academic sources discussing this, spanning over a decade, e.g. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Michig: @Rubbish computer: These five academic source are effectivey the same authors from the "Argumentation Research Group (ARG), School of Computing, University of Dundee" (with Floris Bex from University of Groningen appearing in some; maybe he was in Dundee at some stage), in at 3 sources, it is the same core paper, where as in the other two sources, one is a 2-page draft (not a paper) by the ARG leader (Chris Reed) with University of Dubai, and the other is again Chris Reed and the core ARG, talking about applications of their main paper.

a. First source [47] author Chris Reed, Katarzyna Budzynska, Rory Duthie, Mathilde Janier, Barbara Konat, John Lawrence, Alison Pease, Mark Snaith

b. Second souce (their draft) [48] John Lawrende, Floris Bex, Chris Reed, and Mark Snaith

c. Third source [49] this is a 2-page draft by Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, Chris Reed (Universty of Dundee with University of Dubai)

d. Fourth source [50] (identical paper to first source by identical authors)

e. Fifth source [51] (same authors as second source)

The requirement is several significant independent sources – these are not independent, and some are not even significant. On this basis, almost every academic paper would qualify as a WP article. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and these: [52], [53], [54]?

Comment haven't time to go throuh all but the third one is from Part V Chapter 21 and if you check the contents you will see team members of the above papers appearing as the authors (e.g. Floris Bex, Chris Reed), and the section itself is also about the University of Dundee's Arvina (by Mark Snaith) and OVA (by Chris Reed) Arguement Web applications. Again, the University of Dundee ARG team writing about their own work – don't think that would pass independence? Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter has some of the Dundee staff listed among the authors, but mostly other people. The other two of these sources come from Brazillian authors. --Michig (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also coverage of Rahwan's ArgDF e.g. [55]. The Dubai group have collaborated with the Dundee group, but there appears to be at least three research groups working on this in three different countries. --Michig (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list of authors at Part V Chapter 21 would have written individual sections of Chapter 21. The first two of the other references (11 and 12) are essentially the same source: Roberto Niche. I would need to check more as to whether Roberto was part of the ARG, but if not it would be a single independent source. I don't understand link with Rahwam's ArgDF (I can't see Arguement Web)? Previously, I felt that this was not only un-notable, but that the references had dried up. You have shown there is possibly one independent recent academic group that recognises the term? Not sure however if the case is still too contrived (i.e. I feel like we are stretching for this one), verus a clear case for notabilty. 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Semantic web per 31.54.34.61. While Michig has uncovered some sources, I find Britishfinance's rebuttal of their independence, reliability and scope of coverage compelling. SITH (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 09:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FDR Music Charts

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

Already deleted in 2014 per AfD consensus and re-added some nine months later. Considered a non-notable, deprecated chart as per WP:CHARTS. Should apply for speedy deletion, but since it's been here for almost five years, it's better to discuss it here. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:BADCHARTS and always will be. Nate • (chatter) 16:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two other FDR Wikipedia articles: List of FDR Top 40 number-one singles of 2014 and List of number-one pop singles of 2014 (Ukraine). I have no knowledge of Ukrainian music but could not find anything on google that indicated that FDR Charts were in any way notable (not a single source). We should purge all FDR chart articles and we should also salt given its re-appearance (and related articles). Britishfinance (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the chart doesn't appear to be notable per GNG, having failed to receive significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. BADCHARTS is more a reliability question, which is moot. SITH (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per no opposition to the ultimate keep !vote Lourdes 09:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simin Saberi

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

I can’t find any singifanct sources to gain enough coverage for the late Bahá'í Faith in Iran to make us doubt about the notability. Sheldybett (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I don't think there is enough here to meet the notability criteria. Certainly all the references in English just mention her in passing as one of the group executed. There is an article on Mona Mahmudnizhad, one of the other women, who there is more information about, so I would propose redirecting this article to there. Melcous (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - This article is a direct translation from Wikipedia Farsi. Simin Saberi was a Baháí's right activist, and that makes her notable. She was captured and executed by the Iranian regime. MA Javadi (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MA Javadi: - being a translation doesn't mean it can be retained. Different language wikipedias have very different rules about what are sufficient grounds to retain a person as a separate article. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (target for discussion) - Melcous is correct reasoning that there isn't much sourcing on her - not enough to demonstrate GNG. Logically there should be an article on the incident and this should be part of that. I'm unsure on redirect target, though Mona's would be one logical target. Given the long list of changes made yesterday, this should be checked back in before the week is up. Nosebagbear(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article has been translated from Farsi. The Bahá’í community in Iran are under the systematic crackdown and this woman, Simin Saberi was one of the first victims in Iran.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikoo.Amini: - being a translation doesn't mean it can be retained. Different language wikipedias have very different rules about what are sufficient grounds to retain a person as a separate article. See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment:This should be taken into account that due to severe repression in Iran those executed in the 80s their names could not reflect on the media. Therefore, this much publicity for Simin Saberi shows her notability. MA Javadi (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And while that argument has some, limited, validity (much like we'd expect less coverage for 15th century individuals) there is both secondary coverage on Mona Mahmudnizhad and it was usually created significantly after the fact, so it clearly was possible for those in this group. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Hi there – First, I'm glad to know you. Surely is clear that We are not in the 15th century. But unfortunately, the siege of repression in Iran is savagely intense. In 1988, the Iranian regime has executed more than 30,000 prisoners and buried them in mass graves, without being publicly announced. So there wasn't enough reflection in Iranian mass media coverage at that time. all the facts I could gathered are listed above. best regards - MA Javadi (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I agree with the points made above that there is a good common-sense case for keeping an article on Simin Saberi (as well as creating an article on the 18 June 1983 Baha'i executions which might link to individual cases). English Wikipedia's notability criteria seem a rather blunt instrument in this case and I think English-speaking readers will be grateful that someone's gone to the trouble of translating this from Farsi. Besides, if we were going to be lawyerish about this (which I hope we wouldn't), I've found a reasonable amount of further detail on Saberi in good-quality sources in English, which I'll be happy to integrate into the article in due course, which put her on a similar footing to Mona Mahmudnizhad:
- Universal House of Justice, 'Persecution of the Bahá'í Community of Iran: 1983-1986', Bahá'í World, 19 (1983-1986), 176-226 (pp. 181-85).
- Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, 'Community Under Siege: The Ordeal of the Bahá’ís of Shiraz' (September 2007)
- Olya Roohizadegan, Olya's Story: A Survivor's Dramatic Account of the Persecution of Bahái̓ś in Revolutionary Iran (Oxford: Oneworld, 1993), ISBN 185168073X

Alarichall (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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