Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Kabbani

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, this was the best I could find searching online. Does not meet WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, and the author seems closely connected to the subject. Fails WP:GNG? Syndicater (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenan Edwards

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

The coverage of this journalist is pretty minor and WP:ROUTINE. I cannot see that notability under WP:JOURNALIST is met. Tacyarg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet notability standards. Syndicater (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. My searches find stunningly little for an active news presenter with a fairly unique name. gNews turned up nothing. [1] A Proquest news archive search got a total of 12 hits, several on other Gwenans Edwards ("Gwenan hitEdwards, a 26-year-old veterinary nurse"; "At his rented cottage near Denbigh, where he lives with his girlfriend Gwenan Edwards and their chickens and sheep..."). Even the hits on our Gwenan were passing mentions: "The questions posed by presenters Petroc Trelawny and Gwenan Edwards..." ; "digital viewers hoping to receive BBC local news services, such as Newsroom Southeast with the lovely Gwenan Edwards, are being fobbed off with the lamentable cable channel News 24. ", and similar. were passing mentions. The best I found were this: "The questions posed by presenters Petroc Trelawny and Gwenan Edwards." (Wish they weren't there . . . ? Kerr, Michael. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK) [London (UK)]02 Feb 2002: 01. ) and this: "Gate 24's Gwenan Edwards doesn't seem to know if she's presenting a travelogue or a news show. Her reporting is too frothy to come anywhere near serious analysis (she makes Judith Chalmers look like John Simpson; no, not literally) yet the programme's brief requires her to ask questions, for example hard- hitting guided missiles (to a Taj Mahal tour guide) like: "How important is the Taj Mahal to Indian people?" or "Why do they come here - is it just to look at the building or is it to experience it spiritually?"." (Arts Etc: The critics: CHANNEL HOPPER: The Taj Mahal of digital television: [FOREIGN Edition] Millar, Iain. The Independent on Sunday; London (UK) [London (UK)]08 June 2003: 13.). This is far, far less than I usually find on non-notable journalists who come to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

María Castillo de Contreras

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

Longevity myth not validated by Guinness World Records. Georgia guy (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable longevity claim, one obituary is thoroughly routine. Not even enough veracity to go in the table at longevity claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and no significant achievements or coverage. Syndicater (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin DeMoss

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

Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E, all coverage of the subject is in connection to whistleblowing on a minor controversy, and even then most of the coverage is barely better than mere-mention. Claims of the subject "bringing down Saudi lobbyists" appear to be a bit overblown. It's not clear that the controversy that the subject was involved in is even notable enough to receive an article, as all coverage appears to be from the same week in 2017, which doesn't indicate lasting significance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E, since he's only notable for exposing a politician. INeedSupport ^:3 17:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Ali Khan Tiger

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

No claim to notability, Google doesn't turn anything notable up, the linked sources describe him as a political figure but again nothing especially notable. Primary contributor is User:Haideralitiger, suggesting that this is either a vanity article or by someone close to the subject. creffett (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep : The Pioneer article mentions him as president of Rashtriya Pathan Mahasabha. I found one more in India today where, it's written :

'Less than 24 hours after the Mulayam Singh Yadav harangue, Samajwadi Party workers in Ghazipur were all agog, welcoming a new member into their fold.He was neither a cine star nor a socialite with a cause though the fanfare would have warranted one. He was Haider Ali Khan a.k.a Tiger, a local criminal with about half-a-dozen cases lodged against him. In the Uttar Pradesh assembly where Mulayam is the leader of the house, Tigers are the rule rather than the exception.'

^[1]

So he has political capital for sure.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/states/uttar-pradesh/story/20041101-most-mlas-of-u.p-have-criminal-cases-789656-2004-11-01

Delete since the subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, as he has not won any election or held any major public office. The WP:GNG bar for politicians are higher because they get covered in the media when they stand for elections. Their articles are not kept simply because he gets a mention in the media (As he is 'mentioned' in the link posted above by User:Exploreandwrite). Which is why I am asking for a delete here. Besides the major issue of notability due to the failure to meet NPOLITICIAN, there are other problems with the article as well, it is a one sided 'autobiography' which deliberately hides information about the criminal cases. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having "political capital", if he actually does have any, doesn't make him notable. Both WP:NPOL fail and WP:GNG fail given the lack of in-depth coverage. Even if he did pass either notability standard it would probably have to be deleted and re-written per WP:TNT just to get the promotional stink off it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not a matter of whether the subject has "political capital" or not — it is a matter of whether the subject has held a notable political office or not. This person hasn't, and the referencing is not getting him over WP:GNG: he gets namechecked in coverage of other things or people, but is not substantively the subject of any of the footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DBX and BCat.∯WBG^converse 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miziker Entertainment

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

Has not attracted any independent coverage as is required to meet WP:CORP. The only substantial coverage is in trade publications which WP:ORGIND frowns upon using to establish notability. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet CORP or GNG. JSFarman (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Northern American nectar sources for honey bees. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada

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

Partial duplicate of List of Northern American nectar sources for honey bees, while consisting primarily of original research. Redirect reverted by author. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- would the author consider including a table on garden plants in the Northern American nectar source article (or flag species currently in the tables to identify them as common garden plants, with a footnote at the end signifying their importance in preserving the honeybee population)?
Orville1974 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Aquataste in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unclear what the advantage of the separate list is. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is not a duplicate. For example, it contains rosemary, which is a valid entry, but the other page doesn't. Note also that the page started as quite general with the title list of plants to feed bees. I'm not seeing the point of dividing these lists by geography as garden plants tend to be global. If there are sublists, these would be best be divided by climate type rather than location -- temperate, tropical, etc. The topic is, of course, quite notable per WP:LISTN as there are even books about such plants for Canada -- see this for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Info contained has encyclopedic value. Laosilika (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Hello, I am the originating editor for the article. There is a serious decline in insect populations in particular the honey bee. Part of the reason for the decline of the bees is a lack of food due to a lack of bee friendly flowering plants. The 49th Parallel where most major Canadian cities are located has it’s own specific climate where only certain bee friendly garden plants can grow. Hence, Wikipedia requires an article specific for garden plants than can be grown in Canadians gardens that are bee friendly. This article is currently a +stub with plenty of potential to expand, which is all that is required at Wikipedia for an article to qualify to be allowed. Thank you Aquataste (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a) Wikipedia requires an article specific for garden plants than can be grown in Canadians gardens that are bee friendly. Wikipedia emphatically does not. We are not a gardening manual, and we don't "spread the word".

b) This article is currently a +stub with plenty of potential to expand, which is all that is required at Wikipedia for an article to qualify to be allowed. Errm... no. It also depends on a number of other factors, one of which is whether the material is already covered (which it is - Andrew D.'s standard "I googled a book with this title!" argument for rampant proliferation notwithstanding). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not intended to be a "gardening manual". There are a lot of books written about World War I, Christianity and the United States, should we delete those articles too -:) Aquataste (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make is that "people need to know how to do X" is not a suitable motivation for creating a specific article. It's a laudable ambition but it is not what Wikipedia is for. That's not to say that such a motivation can't dovetail with our actual goal (to summarize information that has already received widespread coverage), but you shouldn't expect a desire to, e.g., enjoy more cherry orchards on the Orkneys to have much impact when trying to start a separate article "Cherry varieties that don't mind snowstorms in July". Expect other considerations, which are being discussed here, to determine that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we both agree to disagree, take care. Aquataste (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the two articles, I don't see how they would be easily merged, conceptually. But then the concept of List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada seems a little unwieldy. Aquataste says it is primarily for 49°N, then really it's List of garden plants to feed honey bees along the 49th Parallel. If it's about the country, it should be about the country and not just the population centers. I think something along the original concept that Andrew Davidson mentioned would be good, but closer to list of temperate garden plants that feed bees. If we had 'List of garden plants to feed honey bees in...' for every country there would be too much overlap. zones or climates would serve readers better. I commend the desire to help pollinators, but the current article excludes temerate readers outside Canada who could actually use the plants of their gardens, and misleads Canadians living in colder climes. That leads to more hungry bees, not fewer. --Nessie (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title of the article mentions honeybees, but the body of the article and the cited sources mention bumblebees. Is this supposed to be a general article covering all bees? Only covering bees native to Canada? Only covering honeybees (which aren't native to Canada)? Plantdrew (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one-type of honey bee used in Canada including the non-native western honey bee (Apis mellifera). If the consensus is to change the word "honey bee" to "bumble bee" or "bee" I am happy to abide by that. Aquataste (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any honey bees are native to the new world. Bumble bees are not honey bees, even if they make honey. --Nessie (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Northern American nectar sources for honey bees then delete this one. The title is written in a way that it infers the article is a guide and should not be a redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a guide to beekeeping or wildlife conservation. (Although as mentioned above, honey bees aren't even native to North America.) The article title would also not make a useful/realistic redirect. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a guide. Also, I doubt that this would be a useful redirect page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Northern American nectar sources for honey bees. Some of the ecological concerns raised in this article should be added to the list as well. The title should probably be deleted after the merge, as I can't see it being a viable redirect. The original writer should be commended for his or her good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. schetm (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the nomination. This list is simultaneously overly broad (a plant which grows in Nova Scotia might not grow so well or at all in Alberta) and overly narrow ("honey" bees as opposed to all beneficial pollinators, generally the focus of such articles). The more general North America list is suitably focused (notwithstanding my point about non-honey-producing pollinators) such that a reader, if they're interested, can review the list and determine which plant species might be suitable for their own local climate. As a redirect to the other list, this title is fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the general concept of a merge is a good one, but a concern that I would have with using the current pagename as a redirect is that it does imply a how-to, even if that was not the intent, and that would go against WP:NOT. I also think that the North America page can be improved by revising it to reflect the differences-by-latitude that have been pointed out in this discussion. That does indeed sound like useful and encyclopedic information, but it can be presented better by using multiple page sections instead of multiple pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little can be added. Redirect if we add sections with a paragraph summarizing large regions in the other article. Maybe adding zone info to the tables would help people find their area. StrayBolt (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had been mulling over what to do with this one for awhile, but there's functionally nothing to merge as it's essentially covered in other articles in better detail. The North American article already has its problems, and this term isn't really a useful redirect either. In the end WP:NOTGUIDE policy is very clear, and Wikipedia is not the place to be cataloguing all possible pollen sources, etc. or creating redirects for search terms used as such. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this could be useful information for a how-to guide or directory but it's out of the project scope of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Worthwhile material that ought not to be consigned to the dust heap of Wikipedia. WP:Not paper Worth a transplant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is being called worthwhile material here. The first sentence on bumblebee decline is about the only usable content bit, and that's fleshed out much more over at Pollinator_decline and other articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per user Ivanvector comments Lubbad85 (☎) 15:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingofaces43. I agree with his sentiment that there are very few parts of the article worth merging, and those bits are already better covered elsewhere. The title would not make a useful redirect at all, so a plain deletion would be the most logical step here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Northern American nectar sources for honey bees since the topic is already covered there. Dream Focus 16:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete: Merge if possible, delete otherwise. Plants included in the Canada article and not the North America one are bluebells, cornflowers (though other Centaurea species are listed), cosmos, crocus, hellebore, primrose (Primula), rosemary, black-eyed susans (Rudbeckia). I can only find a reference for one of those, though I haven't looked very hard. Rudbeckia and possibly other plants not listed in either article are listed at the end of [2]. There's another list of plants about 4/5 of the way down [3]. Someone less lazy than me might want to add those to the North America article, if they're not already there. This isn't a very useful redirect to leave, so I'm also fine with deleting. Iamnotabunny (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Professor. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professor (highest academic rank)

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

Contains nothing which is not better dealt with in the main article Professor Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider reorganizing academic rank articles. The article Professor no longer contains details about the various professor ranks. Ranks mean different things in different countries which posed a problem. There is a series of articles besides the one under consideration that provides information about professorial ranks. (There are some candidates for merger here, which could be done using a well-advertised merge discussion.)

We also have

Professors in the United States
Adjunct professors in North America
Professors in Canada (redirect)
Professors in the United Kingdom (redirect)
all the "Academic ranks in xxxx" articles in Category:Academic ranks

In October 2014 there was a merge discussion Talk:Professor#Merge which resulted in the splitting of the very large article into the various academic rank by country articles rather than merging the various professor ranks in. This was disputed again in October 2015 but upheld at Talk:Assistant professor#Proposed merge with Professor. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to professor. This article was created by one of the participants in the discussion back in 2014 in a good-faith attempt to resolve the professor article situation, but never evolved beyond the current stub that now also mostly overlaps with the main professor article. Regarding the other articles on ranks below professor: As discussed several times, they shouldn't be merged with the professor article, because we need an article that is specifically about the full professor rank as it is understood in most countries, and articles on other ranks that are widely used around the world. Some years ago the professor article had evolved into a monstrosity of an article that attempted to cover all academic ranks in all countries. The scope of such an article is simply too broad and the length of the article was already exceeding Wikipedia:Article size recommendations by far, despite only covering a fraction of its declared scope and in a very haphazard way (some countries were covered, some were not, so if it had been developed further based on that model it could easily have become much longer). Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of minutely detailed articles on specific military ranks, and there has been no proposal to merge all those articles into a single article on military ranks (there are over 200 articles on the military ranks of just a single country, while the total number of articles on academic ranks in the entire world is below 50). In addition, in most of the English-speaking world and most of the world in general the unqualified word professor only refers to full professors and in virtually all countries other than the US, ranks below professor are never referred to as professors (at least not the unqualified word) and frequently have formal titles that doesn't even include the word professor, so "professor" isn't an appropriate title for an article that covers lecturers, senior lecturers and ranks at comparable (non-professor) level. The appropriate title for an article with such a scope would be academic ranks, but that article already exists as a list. The inflated US informal usage of the term "professor" is also primarily covered by a separate article, Professors in the United States, and while this US-specific usage should be mentioned in the main article, it shouldn't be the basis for the entire article when pretty much the rest of the world regards "professor" as synonymous with the specific rank sometimes known as "full professor" (for instance in the UK, just about 10% of the academics of a university are professors, and the situation is the same in many other European countries). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't know, nor can figure out, what this article title is supposed to convey. It appears what is covered now could be used in Professor. Information is vague at best, as it seems to indicate that a professor is a professor (also full professor) ---is a professor. If I wanted to know information about a professor of the highest rank in the U.S. (covered in the article) what would I learn from reading "In United States and Canada the word professor is also used in the two lower ranking positions, assistant professor and associate professor.". The highest level terminal degrees would not be seem to be considered the "highest academic rank". A college professor with a "Masters degree" might be senior as well as tenured at that institution but that would not seem to convey the "highest academic rank".

In the U.S. a professor of the "highest academic rank" would be a senior tenured distinguished/endowed full professor and I would think certainly with a PhD correct? In some other parts of the world hierarchical rankings places the equivalent rank as associate professor (level D or senior principal research fellow and SC-level 4 in Western Australia. A level E (professor) and the equivalent rank of Level 8 (Senior Principal Research Scientist, Western Australia SC-level 5) appears to be lower than a Level 9 (Chief Research Scientist) and SC-level 6 chief, in Western Australia. It seems that in an attempt to "break down" all the academic "ranks", I suppose to create a less unwieldy article (monstrosity), splitting off is required but to do this just to create a title, that is not supported by sources, does not make sense.

My concerns are 1- Can this "modified title" be used to create an article of substance? I had opened 14 tabs that included six Wikipedia articles and my 12 year old grandson was watching over my shoulder. He offered that from what he saw it seems that the article was not needed so should be deleted or redirected. I asked him where he came up with the terms "redirect" and "deletion" and he stated "it is an option listed above" as an alternative to deletion. WOW! I just thought it amazing that I had an intelligent conversation like this with an seventh grader. I then had to explain that I was trying to decide "if" there was really a subject here. Otr500 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any useful information is already in Professors in the United States.Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete: Per User:Bjerrebæk. The title might be useful on a search so can be redirected to professor that should explain a "full professor" which is actually the main subject just renamed. The "concept" of habilitation, used in some European countries is a post-doctoral qualifications for teaching, and not actually a higher academic ranking so I can see no advantage in keeping this subject as a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray McBerry

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

No significant, in-depth sourcing that treats the subject in detail. A minor political candidate. Neutrality^talk 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non-elected and also didn't get any nomination. No credible sources found. Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries, but there's no claim here that he would have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL Lubbad85 (☎) 20:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Woodham Ferrers Council Taxpayers Association

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

Fails GNG. Small local political party with only trivial references in given sources and no hits from WP:BEFORE. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NORG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates that Peter meets WP:PROF and acknowledges that the article may have issues but needs to been improved. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Uvin

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

BLP lacking independent references Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment In addition to being a Guggenheim Fellow, he appears to have held a named chair at Tufts (the Henry J. Leir Chair of International Humanitarian Studies), and he was profiled in The Chronicle of Higher Education as being the first provost of Amherst College. Book reviews: [4][5][6][7]. XOR'easter (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited books), #C5 (the named chair), and WP:AUTHOR (I just added 12 published reviews, with multiple reviews of each of his four books, to the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is clearly notable, but the article needed references. Happy to withdraw now. Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is seen. WP:BIO is covered. Laosilika (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of reviews of his books, (some of which have enough to warrant their own articles (not that i'm suggesting anyone creates them:))), thanks to David Eppstein for listing some/most of them in the article, that are "well known" (reflected by their library holdings, just enter "Peter Uvin" in worldcat and click away), i know the article was tiny pre-afd see here, but nominator needs to remember before, before, before, before, before, before....... Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a humble categoriser, but I think if I find a BLP with no references I should not ignore it. Rathfelder (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, don't ignore but improve. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets multiple notability guidelines, per all above. This is an article that is in need of improvement, not deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Collins (academic)

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

BLP with no independent references. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dean of a residential house is way too low an academic administration position for notability, and her name is so common that I can't find anything else of interest about her. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone can convincingly demonstrate that she has or had an ongoing and successful academic career that passes WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, but for now there's just too little to go on. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything to base a notability claim upon or write an article with. If anyone else has better luck, I'll happily revisit my opinion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The best source cited here is the subject's own LinkedIn page, which is not saying much. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. St Anselm (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero significant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The category will need to be discussed at WP:CFD. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin dancehall

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

Nothing on the prose specifically about the genre is sourced and none of the sources in the articles mentions Latin dancehall as its own musical style. The prose is full of original research. I can't find anything on Billboard's Latin section or on Rolling Stone's Latin section either. Fails WP:GNG. Also want to point out that the article was created by a user that has now been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. EDIT: The one source that does mention "dancehall" doesn't make any references to "Latin dancehalls" and the source itself doesn't appear to comply with WP:RS. Erick (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mercy11 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR trying to will a new genre into existence. Not one of the references mention "Latin dancehall" as a genre. The prose claims that one song created the genre, but the article linked as a reference doesn't even mention that song or artist or the supposed genre. The other two are Billboard references citing a song's chart peak, not its genre. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding a few references to this as a genre with Google, but nothing that is jumping out as a reliable source. I notice however that we have a category called 'Latin dancehall songs' - presumably this would also need to be deleted if this article goes. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah most of them tend to be related music events rather than information about the genre. And I say delete the categories too. Erick (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was FYI: Nomination was withdrawn and the nominator closed the page. As a result, this is a speedy keep. --MrClog (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spessart, Rhineland-Palatinate

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

There is no source, and nothing notable about the existence of this municipality in one sentence article. Orville1974 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, which applies to legally-recognized incorporated places, of which I think this is one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved I removed my request for deletion tag.
Thank your for your help, John M Wolfson
Orville1974 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitrade

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

No credible claim to notability. All of the references included (and other sources I can find) are either reviews, primary sources, or obvious regurgitation of press releases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG particularly WP:ORGCRITE. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources or assertion of notability. Even the included content is really scraping the barrel - Do we really need to know their trading license number? Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability and is mostly primarily sourced
Orville1974 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another spam article about an obscure fintech company. The article does not make a claim of notability, or provide any evidence that the firm might be notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. An experienced editor like Onel5969 should know that it is bad form to renominate an article 17 days after the previous AfD. This should not be taken to AfD again before at least 4-6 months have passed. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Essex

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

Minor tv personality who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of the coverage is generated out of their participation in the single show, Celebs Go Dating, some of which is simply promotional material. Appears to fit WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has already been through AfD in the last month, nominated by the same person and there was no consensus to delete it. onel5969, I really don't think this should just have been brought back here, especially so quickly and when there was a good amount of participation in that discussion. Just from the sources in the article, there are reliable sources such as the Independent, the Guardian, the Evening Standard and the BBC. She is most well-known for Celebs Go Dating but there has also been extensive coverage of her legal battles and her other work such as Celebrity Ghost Hunt and Celebrity Coach Trip - the coverage clearly meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. There were some promotional additions, but that isn't a reason for deletion, I just deleted that information. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but all the in-depth stuff stems almost solely out of their participation in a single television program, so imho WP:BIO1E would apply. And although it was closed as non-consensus, other than your keep !vote, the other two where simple drive by votes.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article could use more content (but it's not for a lack of her generating it regularly) Orville1974 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beth Goncarova

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (a lot of the following is derived from Saatchi Art here) Goncarova's work has been in plenty of exhibitions ie. Arts Council of Greater New Haven 2013 "Web Versions", Women's Caucus for Art (WCA) and SOMArts Cultural Center Gallery: 2009 "CONTROL: An Exhibition of California Women Artists" (page 27), 2011 "Man as Object: Reversing the Gaze", Sanchez Art Center 2011 "Arts on Fire, Kehler Liddell Gallery 2014 "Silent Poems, Spoken Light: Works by Maureen M. Squires and Sarah Beth Goncarova" (pages 13, 14), 2014 joint exhibition WCA and Lu Xun Academy of Fine Arts - "Half the Sky: Intersections in Social Practice Art" (pages 11, 35); finalist in 2013 Young Sculptors Competition William and Dorothy Yeck Award (article discusses the work and Goncarova) (note: some of the above is already in the article), but have been unable to find her work in any wikimajor/significant gallery permanent collections, nor wikisignificant exhibitions so unfortunately does not meet WP:NARTIST, this is a reluctant delete, editors may suggest that these and other exhibitions/appearances in the article leads her to meeting WP:GNG but others can argue they are the sort of thing that any artist will have over a career of 10+ years and does not make her wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly sourced but this artist was playing for the Alexandria Symphony Orchestra at the age of nine. This was notable enough for the Washington Post so there is enough for ambitious editors to improve the article so her notability is more obvious.--23mason (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJet Flight Support

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

Reads like an advert; written by potential COI editor with company name in username (Carol iJET); has no sources; no obvious sign of notability from a quick web search. Lopifalko (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially the same reasons as in the nomination. Although the name appears in a few news sources, it mainly seems to be PR opportunities where an executive is commenting on an unrelated story, so does not meet WP:ORGCRIT Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-spam}}, or speedy draftify. Article as is, is just spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My mistake, I should have sent it to or CSD G11 because it is "exclusively promotional", rather than AfD. I am used to doing that when reviewing draft articles but not when reviewing articles in article space. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious paid and unsourced spam. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD#A7 (corp) and CSG#G11 (advertising). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly on the keep side. It also looks like some of the concerns noted in the nomination have been handled as the article has been significantly edited since being nominated. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leirion Gaylor Baird

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

Subject is a major and city councilwoman of Lincoln, Nebraska. Have not been elected in a high level political position. Fail WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand (and appreciate) the linking to WP:NPOL. Per there, politicians are notable if they have "received significant press coverage", which includes "independently in multiple news feature articles". I think that, after my revision of the article, Gaylor Baird meets those criteria; she has significant local press coverage (and, on occasion, national), which establishes notability. Her candidacy, in addition to controversies with her opponent, were the subject of much local debate and controversy -- enough that I think it was "significant". Per WP:GNG, there is "significant", "reliable", "source[d]", "independent of the subject" journalism. To be sure, that does not automatically presume notability -- but I do not see that, e.g., WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. I think her press coverage, in addition to her role as a mayor of a large city, establishes general notability. I think that the presumption of notability for statewide legislative office (see: WP:NPOL) suggests that significant, lasting local coverage is enough to establish notability for politicians in general -- for which, this subject meets.DoomLexus (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: content on campaigning or what other talk about the position of majorship or city councilwomen would consider marketing articles. Just as many independent reliable sources talk about a politician running for a federal or national position without no previous high level position before is still considered pass GNG and would not merit a page in Wikipedia. GNG for politician needs more than just info on the low level activities on their position. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing my vote to keep per Bearcat below and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians. This article may lend to notability, but I can't get to the with or without adblock (real mess of a website) but it is available on Proquest. https://journalstar.com/lifestyles/thoughts-of-darfur-s-women-motivate-triathlete/article_ccd1a8d2-37a5-59a0-a2c8-55d2a075dc59.html originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but mayors of cities the size of Lincoln NE most certainly are acceptable article topics. Mayors of major cities do not have to show as much nationalized coverage as mayors of small towns do — nationalized coverage certainly still wouldn't hurt, but it's not a base condition that big city mayors always have to pass to be considered notable in the first place: that added hurdle applies to small town mayors, but not to mayors of large and significant cities. And while it's true that campaign coverage does not help to establish the permanent notability of an as yet unelected mayoral candidate in and of itself, a person who has jumped the fence from "candidate" to "officeholder" can use the campaign coverage to help expand the article with. And since she was apparently just sworn in as mayor yesterday, it's clear that there will be additional coverage in the future to further improve the article with too. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even a discussion. This is the page for the incumbent Mayor of a state capital with nearly 300,000 residents. I have seen pages for mayors of towns with 10,000 residents that went unchallenged. If this discussion had been raised when she was still a candidate, I might have understood. However, it appears to have been raised instead not only after she was elected, but after she took office. It is so outlandish to me that this page would even be nominated for deletion that I feel tempted to say that it was done in bad faith. Avidohioan (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete : the original was a copyright violation of older texts like this one from 2009: the translation of a copyright violation is also a copyright violation (though one that isn't to blame on the unwitting translator) and must be deleted. Fram (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Tadday

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

Not seeing any real notability for just another teacher. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have no time to look closer right now, but looks an author of our sources, especially for Martinů. Can certainly be polished, but again: no time now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no time, but found a book by him reviewed in a leading paper [8], - he's not "another teacher", and I found that on the first page of a google search. I'd hope for looking that little into a bio before nominating for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article needs improvement, but I'm leaning towards keep. He is a full professor at a well-regarded university, so there is a case for WP:PROF C5 (Germany doesn't have "distinguished professorships" or named chairs). --Tataral (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Our man has 8 entries in the Authority control template which should be enough to demonstrate his notability. Besides there are links to several articles in the encyclopedia and 4 references to some of his publications. I know it doesn't make up for the lack of references but could'nt find a single one. LouisAlain (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7+G11 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baburam dahal

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

NO evidence of notability, and reads a bit promotional. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD#A7 (person). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11. T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a slut novel

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

Soon-to-be self-published debut novel without actual notability yet Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional and yet to be published novel. Fails GNG and WP:BKCRIT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should not be deleted. It is a nice article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7.30.199.223 (talk • contribs)

Deletion or keeping should be based on notability of the subject, not "niceness" of the article. --ilmaisin (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable self-published book. The article provide no reliable sources, and I can find no others. Really, this could almost be a valid Speedy Deletion nomination due to the obvious promotional tone of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. Unreleased and only self-published or user-generated sources, clear promotional tone. Nanophosis (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. This is wildly promotional and should be deleted as soon as possible. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article appears to have been created by the book's author. This is definitely a speedy delete situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BOOKCRIT. Whole article reads like a promotion, is full of puff and weasel words and provides no proof of notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, zero reliable reviews, doesn't happen often that a gsearch brings up so few hits under book title and author, ie. "Being a slut Mehra", article appears to be created by author, hi Parasmehra199, sorry, but Wikipedia is not here for promotional purposes. ps. an admin might like to close this early. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely failing to reach the notability threshold for books. Given the tone currently used in the article, I wouldn't object to a speedy deletion on spam grounds. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as G11 per the above. I've also tagged the article. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Then two "merge"s do not agree about where to. Sandstein 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trope (religion)

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

Largely a content fork of Cantillation and stub-level fork of Trope (music). In some ways also functions as a fork of Trope (disambiguation). Ibadibam (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-I came across this some month back and found it confusing. It should all be part of Trope (music), as even that page is largely about religious music anyway. The part about the Unity of the Brethren should be moved to Unity of the Brethren--I could add that one subdivision for American Moravians during the communal living era was the "choir"--we do not have a "choir (religion)" article just because they borrowed a musical term for polity-related purposes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Cantillation also be merged to Trope (music)? The two seem like quite distinct concepts. Most of the content in the article under discussion relates to Jewish cantillation. Ibadibam (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "no." Long answer: To the best of my knowledge, cantillation is an example of (or at least involves) one of the older forms of trope in music. Trope (music) needs a discussion of cantillation more than cantillation needs a discussion of trope. If there is any novel content in trope (religion) that also needs to be copied over to cantillation, please do that. I did not check for this possibility. But at the same time, Trope (music) also needs a summary of the material. If for some reason it is decided that trope (religion) should be merged to cantillation, someone should still determine that the summary of cantillation on trope (music) is adequate.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference here is OED, but OED does not mention trope in a religious or musical setting, only as "a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression" - covered in the Cantillation article, not notable enough for a stand-alone article - with no references, this article does not meet WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Judaism. Syndicater (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is mainly a much shorter substitute for Cantillation (the Jewish use of "trope"). The main Christian use of "trope" is already covered in Trope (music), and I don't understand what the Moravian Church use of "trope" is supposed to mean, but it can be covered in some other appropriate article. Since we already have a disambiguation page at Trope, this article covering three topics inadequately, two of which already have better articles, is not needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content fork, would be redundant to the dab, as discussed above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2.2.1

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

~~Wikipedia:Partial title matches. These x.x.x titles could refer to thousands of other things that aren't just model versions. Allweneedisloveandpeace (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Bundling:

Okay, that's fair. I'll second deletion of these. I only created some of these because a few already existed like this. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wouldn't Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion be a better venue for this discussion, since this technically isn't an article? --Geolodus (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geolodus no. MfD is explicitly not for content in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There's no need to ping me, as I typically watch these pages after voting on them. -Geolodus (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it can refer to thousands of things that aren't just model versions then it seems like we'd need multiple disambiguation articles offering finer tuned versions. In checking 4.3.1 and 2.2.1 the targets identified both make sense to me. This to me is closer in philosophy to that of a redirect "dabs are cheap" so easy to keep but no huge loss if the occasional one is deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@InternetProtocol127001: just to clarify, you are agreeing to the deletion of these pages, which you created? In that case, speedy delete per author request --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Yes, I am agreeing with the deletion of these pages. However, I did not create all of them, only some of them. Just doing one AfD on all of them would likely be easier than picking individual ones to speedy delete and waiting for AfD on the rest, so I'm just leaving them all as AfD. That way, this discussion can continue in the event that people decide for whatever reason that they don't want to delete these pages. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. By analogy, if you're looking for information about The Godfather Part II, you don't go to the Part II page (and, in fact, you won't find anything about The Godfather Part II there). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note - I've deleted those created by InternetProtocol127001 as WP:G7, if there is a strong push towards recreation I'm happy to refund. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Ignore me, I didn't see Barkeep's keep statement - I will let the AFD proceed as usual. NODEADLINE and all that. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since the nominator has been blocked as a sock of a banned user, I have stricken their statement. Given that @Primefac has already deleted the pages created by InternetProtocol127001 , I suggest that this be speedy closed without prejudice to renomination of the remaining pages. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been enough valid discussion (including by the creator) that the AFD should run its course. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM and Metropolitan90. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Delete Nom suggests that the x.x.x titles could refer to "thousands of other things", yet these articles run no risk of confusion, as most articles that would link to any version number would instead link to the actual software. These should be the most searched version numbers if they exist on the disambigution page, and if any other version number exists and is relevant, than it could be included on the same page. By wmflabs, the individual version numbers are somewhat frequently searched without a product specification. These pages would serve their purpose to help in these instances.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't believe in the popular argument to delete (too vague and such), it is still a partial title match. I really want these redirects to remain in use, but sadly that isn't how the rules are. I'm going back and forth between my heart and my mind. I'm on the verge of flipping back to keep once one more piece of evidence is given; this is an extremely weak delete. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who would need this disambiguation? Fails WP:PTM. Syndicater (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Syndicater and Barkeep49 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague, It can refer to thousands of different things. Why no also include Windows version too (just an analogy). So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not add any of the thousand different things? It is a disambiguation page after all, a page in which the references can be listed and anybody can search through to find what they are looking for. What else could the user be trying to find with 2.2.1? There's a good chance that no matter what answer you give, a user would just search for the product itself. However, if a general version number is trying to be searched for, it would be best to only include the most popular product's version numbers in the disambiguation page. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unlikely that these are just known by their numbers or that anyone would be looking for "which operating system had versions 2.0.1 and 3.2.2". Redirects such as 7.0.2 should also be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone typing these in should expect hundreds of related topics, not a page making the implicit claim that these numbers refer to two types of OS only. And no one is going to fill in and curate these hundreds, and for many many other version numbers to boot. Apart from that, these are plain unlikely search terms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PTM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanzaville, USA

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

I'm not finding anything other than local coverage of upcoming events and an act of vandalism, so WP:GNG is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the coverage just calls it "Bonanzaville", so searching on "Bonanzaville, USA" gives misleadingly few results. I'm not sure it rises to the level of notability in Wikipedia terms, but the coverage isn't as sparse as it appears at first glance. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of this international coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local-history museums tend to get a surprising amount of coverage in print and other not-easily-found-with-Google sources, and they're quite often notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was correct: there's a significant amount of coverage in print resources, as you'll see if you search WorldCat for bonanzaville. Many of the top resources are irrelevant, being publications by Bonanzaville (e.g. a cookbook and some children's texts), and OCLC 807200662 is a printout of Wikipedia articles, but OCLC 124035705 (from a significant publisher in American local history) has enough coverage of Bonanzaville that it appears in the WorldCat record. According to this archival record from NDSU, the Fargo-Moorhead Historic Buildings Survey produced significant documentation on at least one of the buildings on site (this will be a reliable sources with extensive information on the building), and I'd be quite surprised if such a survey missed all the other buildings here. OCLC 38873053 discusses using Bonanzaville's resources in social studies classes; it was written by college students, but as the project was overseen by education faculty and published by their department of education, I'd consider it a reliable source for this topic. And finally, there are two separate graduate theses focusing on Bonanzaville in particular. OCLC 127449324 is a case study of communication at this museum, and OCLC 23350797 focuses on the process of creating and moving the museum. (Its OCLC record doesn't give much metadata; I know it's a thesis after consulting its record in the NDSU library catalogue.) Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The current sources are RS. I would congratulate the Cass County Hist Soc for creating this 12-acre museum. Museums tend to be tourist attractions and notable as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bahadur Dewan

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

I put this up as a PROD, which was contested by the original author. The author has added more information, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG. As an example, a major source is still a "Prolonged interview of Mr L B Dewan taken by the author from 10/3/2019 to 22/3/2019", which is the epitome of a non-reliable source. Most of the sources mention the subject in passing (at best) or are unreliable (Facebook, personal interviews, a voter ID card (?), etc.). 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI-ridden article with no real basis for notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Hulse

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

No RS, unverifiable and even if a RS can be found, he played such small roles in only 4 films that he was an uncredited extra. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and does not meet WP:ENT. No significant secondary RS coverage. No notability established. • HM Wilburt (talk) 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. No coverage, bit part actor. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravina Project Toronto

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

Seems to be some non notable local project. Has a good ref in the The Globe and the Mail article but there does not seem to be any ongoing coverage to make this pass our notability criteria. Per my assumptions this seems to be a work of someone related to the project and the references indicate some local notability at best Jupitus Smart 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - marginal notability - while receiving some coverage by national newspapers, like the Star and Globe & Mail, it is a one-house private project, not a significant movement - but their record-keeping and published results to show the actual effect of alternative energy sources is innovative and significant, therefore notable - Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st ref from Star has provided exactly one sentence mentioning the project, which does not seem like much to me. Same goes with the CBC article below. The 2nd ref from The Star is an example of why this has nothing more than local notability - the project is a couple's personal campaign to combat climate change, and it gets news value only because of the uniqueness associated with two old people working on a project nobody usually expects from their ilk. I am not considering Torontoist (which incidentally also has only a single sentence), as I don't consider blogs as reliable references. Jupitus Smart 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravina Project Toronto - Response to Proposal to Delete

Hi there, I am not highly proficient with Wiki editing, but I disagree that the project is not notable. Please note a "local" issue is not considered not-notable, based on the Wiki criteria. And to the extent it is "local" - Toronto is a big and important city - many local Toronto places/events/people get Wiki pages.

It has been covered by the CBC, Toronto Star, & Globe and Mail over many years, some references of which are on the page. The page links to articles from 2007, 2008, 2016 & 2017. There are other articles besides (see below) - but my availability to edit is sporadic and limited. Please feel free to edit the page to add the CBC interview below. You mention only one Globe & Mail article, but what about the two Toronto Star articles referenced, or the Toronto Observer piece? I attend climate conferences regularly in Toronto and heard about the project through those conferences - including on the Toronto Environmental Alliance website. I have never met the people behind the project. If someone hears about the Ravina Project (like I did) they should be able to find out more on Wikipedia. That's why I added it. I hope you'd consider improving the page rather than just tagging for deletion.

One last point - it's not easy to get solar panels in Toronto, even in 2019. I know it is in the USA. I have been trying for years and finally reached out to these folks on Twitter to find out how they did it. But they got panels so long ago their contact was unable to help me. I'm not sure if they were the first residence in Toronto to install solar panels, but they might have been. They remain one of the few, even after all these years. Give the page time.

Here's the list of reasons for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion.

And more about notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary

I think of all the criteria, notability is the most subjective. If major newspapers covered the project over more than 10 yeas, I'd argue that's dispositive.

There's a reference to a CBC interview here:

https://www.franciscanvoicecanada.com/blog/the-ravina-project

And this might be the interview:

https://www.cbc.ca/recivilization/episode/2012/02/

And another article here:

https://torontoist.com/2012/02/meet-a-toronto-danforth-candidate-craig-scott/

SabaBPC (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:GNG The google search (all google, not merely news) generates less than 20 results, the top-ranked of which are of the 'things to do near this place' variety. One of the Star articles merely mentions that they attended a local conference, and the Observer is a local college paper (and FWIW, I don't believe the writer actually interviewed the subjects). The straight-up articles (Globe, Star) are basically the same interview and then there is a second Star article (with a very local flavour — headline begins 'Riverdale couple...') that is pretty much a rewrite of the first Star article. I think that what they're doing is kind of interesting but the coverage is mostly about its novelty and not its significance. I might feel differently if I saw references to this data being utilized. ogenstein (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small edit to address this concern. The Frasers spoke at the OGRA conference last year, reporting (among other things) that a flat orientation of their panels improved energy generation in the winter, and references to their project in a book.

I did not have time to include all of the above references. Or this one: https://www.gn21.ca/can-older-homes-be-cozy-and-fossil-free. Another speaking event.

Again - Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where you can go to find out what something is. People in Toronto are hearing about the Ravina Project. They should be able to come here to answer the question "What's the Ravina Project?"

It doesn't have to be "notable" in the way Napoleon Bonaparte is notable. Just notable enough that people might hear about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ravina_Project_Toronto

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard, Indiana

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

Coordinates point to an intersection with nothing nearby, no evidence this is a real community, no sources found about this "place". Listing in a database of place names does not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. Yet another ridiculous nomination of places in Indiana for seemingly no valid reason. Smartyllama (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed notability" means that substantive sources are expected to be available, but none are to be found here so notability is not actually established. Do you have any evidence this is actually a "populated place" besides a context-free database entry? GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". Where are the substantive sources still required under "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."? Reywas92Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep - This is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
- The US Department of the Interior identifies Hubbard as a populated place.
- The State of Indiana identifies Hubbard on a list of municipalities.
- Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Hubbard. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NGEO says that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable" - meeting GNG means having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - this place lacks significant coverage (mentioned in a list or appearing on a map is a passing reference, not significant coverage) - WP:GEOLAND says that places without legal recognition (like this unincorporated community) can be considered notable "given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - WP:GEOLAND also says that places may be notable "because notability encompasses their entire history", but this place has no notable history - just existing does not establish notability - the article does not meet WP:GNG, therefore delete - also, "Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make," and "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted." per WP:2S - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". The notability of these places does not need to be established; a consensus of editors have agreed that if these are legally recognized populated places, they are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Hubbard has been listed on US government records as a populated place for the past 40 years, and appears on countless maps. This would be similar to a one-term do-nothing US senator from the 1920s, where a Wikipedia editor may only find one reliable source to support this person's role as a senator. Their Wikipedia biography might be just one line long, but editors have agreed that all US senators (like all populated, legally recognized places) are notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - 'Presumed' but not guaranteed. It is not an exemption from notability requirements. WP:NGEO explicitly states that the notability of 'places' can be questioned. It makes a distinction between verifiability and notability. The sources noted above fail on notability. Nothing in the page implies notability. I don't really see this 'place' as being populated, for that matter. For the presumption to be valid, there should still be sources discussing the place. Those don't exist (or at least, have not been cited). Finally, we should also consider WP:COMMONSENSE. How does this perfunctory type of page inform readers? That there is a name on a map, but nobody knows or cares what it is? Have a county page that lists the ghost corners and hamlets. Otherwise a reader could endlessly go through the infinite list of 'place names' of Indiana but never actually find anything out about any of them. ogenstein (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that? Saying these things doesn't make them true. Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle up, it's gonna be a long ride.

It's right there in the text. From WP:NGEO:

A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them.

Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

And from WP:COMMONSENSE

Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

Please also see this reference as well, which deals specifically with small place articles: WP:CL-RULE.

At this point, does this article have any encyclopedic content? It does not. It is merely a database entry from the USGS wrapped in a template. So wikipedia does no service to readers with this page and no reader is better informed. If you were interested in studying the geographical history of St. Joseph's County, this page (which you can't really call an article) actually makes it a worse experience because you would have to go through 38 place names in the county, of which maybe four have more than a sentence. Indiana probably has on the order of 2000 'populated places', and that's one state, in one country. Should someone develop a bot to create all these ghost pages? All of the information on the Hubbard page is already on the Olive Township, St. Joseph County, Indiana page.

Consider as well, the pages for Terre Coupee and Hamilton. These are apparently the same place, which was originally named Terre Coupee and then renamed to Hamilton. So it is actually misleading to say that Terre Coupee 'is' a place. It 'was' a place between 1828 and 1837. Having these pages creates confusion.

Please also see this from WP:ARTICLE:

A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:

identifies a notable topic,
summarizes that topic comprehensively,
is written in an encyclopedic style of language,
has been well copyedited,
contains references to reliable sources, and
contains wikilinks to and is linked to by other articles or article sections about related topics.

As I see it, this page meets the first requirement but none of the others.

Please also see this from WP:MISTAKES:

Articles which are too short to have encyclopedic value. Articles must establish the context and notability of the subject. If an article does not contain enough content to keep it from being classified as a mere stub, then it may qualify for speedy deletion.

Please also see this from WP:STUB:

A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion.

And then this:

If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.

And finally, what does WP:NOTABILITY have to tell us:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.

And if we look at it from the other perspective, what does WP:GEOLAND say? Only this: "typically presumed to be notable". And note that NGEO encompasses GEOLAND and addresses this directly.

That does not exempt these pages from every other guideline in wikipedia. I think it means that a subject is eligible for a page despite lacking significance relative to others. Does it exempt editors from having to think or exercise judgement? I don't think any guideline does that. I feel it is being used as a silver bullet.

Afterword: I should add that I did spend hours trying to find something about this 'place' referred to as Hubbard. I did find some interesting pages that cover a range of years and provide the names of many people and places but no place called Hubbard, so even people who knew the area and were interested in preserving its history had nothing to say. Thanks for hearing me out.

ogenstein (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and unincorporated communities are considered notable. I added a citation to the article: Hubbard Topo Map in St. Joseph IN-thank youRFD (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded the article to show that Hubbard was a station on the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad. The settlement was probably named for the Hubbard's of the Haven Hubbard Home, early setters in Olive Township who owned a large tract of land to the northwest. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify which page this station reference is on? From what I can see on the CSS timetable, there were stops at New Carlisle and Olive (to the west) and Warren (to the east). I don't see any stops between. Hopefully I didn't miss something obvious. Nice find.

And as regards your comments on the Hubbards of the area, I agree that there was a prominent family in the township but as you point out, known connections are distant from the designated coordinates and if their buildings were noteworthy and easily found then surely a named community would be as well. I did searches for names (initially R Hubbard, and then Ransom Hubbard, based upon seeing the name in a result in a google books clipping from 'A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana', and then Jonathan Hubbard who was apparently the first to settle in the area and lived in Terre Coupee around when it became Hamilton) but came up dry.

I should add that this is making for an odd way to spend Victoria Day but thinking about the Hubbards of the township got me thinking some more and I went back to google books to look at the snippet of the history book. There was a tantalizing fragment of text saying, "The existence of this old town is so completely obliterated that Judge Hubbard, who was born on Terre Coupee prairie, doubts whether any one on the prairie can point out its site." I couldn't help but wonder if there was a connection. Well, there wasn't, but it turns out that the book is in the public domain, having been written in 1908 and so I was able to see that the reference was for a different place. I think it could be a good resource for many of these northern Indiana stubs, and within the text, it suggests that there may be similar books about nearby counties and townships as well. That said, while it discusses three generations of Hubbards, it does not mention a location with such a name, so I'm still a 'delete'. For those interested, here is the link I found:

A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana

ogenstein (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mothman: Page 15. Enjoy your holiday! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Got it. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND. Not sure why one would nominate this. Lubbad85 (☎) 03:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it fails WP:NGEO, which is a higher requirement, plus numerous other requirements as well. It's not likely to ever pass them. ogenstein (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 14:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Magnolia677, it meets WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hartmann

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

Created by an SPA account. Subject fails WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - served County Commissioner and County Campaigner for other politician and not high level elected political position - Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commissioner is not a role that automatically passes WP:NPOL — it can get a person into Wikipedia if the article can be substanced and referenced well enough to clear NPOL #2 as a topic of significantly greater notability than most other county commissioners, but is not a role that guarantees him an article just because he exists. But the sources here consist of one piece of routine local campaign coverage and a primary source that does not constitute support for notability at all, which isn't even close to the quality or depth or range of referencing he would have to show. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other specific notability guideline. As indicated above, the sources are either primary or routing coverage about the election. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Phoronix Test Suite. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phoronix

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

I don't think this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for web site notability. The article is pretty much completely based on Phoronix itself as a source and can't find a way to fix it. The site, particularly the benchmarks, have been cited by mainstream media but I don't find anything substantial written about the site itself. I tried this Google search to find stuff about Phoronix that is not in Phoronix itself and that is not about the test suite (which has a separate article). I didn't see anything that would be of interest what it comes to writing a Wikipedia article. There is also not much of organization behind the site and it seems to be more or less an one-man show. ilmaisin (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ilmaisin (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Phoronix Test Suite. The Phoronix blog publishes a mix of Linux-related news and benchmark results obtained from the Phoronix Test Suite, so there's considerable overlap between the two articles. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Phoronix Test Suite. Ypatch (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/states/uttar-pradesh/story/20041101-most-mlas-of-u.p-have-criminal-cases-789656-2004-11-01

[1]