Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 18 December 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 December >

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. Tone 11:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Jewell

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

Non-notable heads of non-notable companies. The one company he formerly headed has an article of questionable notability. A quick search couldn't turn up anything other than the man's various SNS accounts. Sources already in the article aren't nothing more than minor mentions of his companies. Fails WP:PERSON FiendYT ★ 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) FiendYT ★ 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of overly promotional articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The fact that only a few editors participated in this debate is to be regretted. No prejudice to bringing this to AfD again in a couple of months. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special Counsel counter report

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

This surely fails WP:CRYSTAL; it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, with the assertions that it will exist coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy.

Until such a report does exist, it does not seem to me to merit a page. Some of the material on the article could perhaps be used in pages about things that do exist. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Pinkbeast: You are correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but does however allow such contents survive here. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (Done, there are various citations from The Atlantic, Washington Times, Washington Post, etc.) and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Again, the Wikipedia that I created suffices this clause as well. Some of the largest news institutions in the country are reporting it. The President has said it, his lawyers have said it...) It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The same paragraph further elaborates on areas in which I have not infringed. You also stated "coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy." Everything has been citied by either media companies, legal institutions, or the people themselves. (E: For more context, Guiliani has said it, Trump has said it, Jay, Marty has, etc. This has been talked about for close to half a year.)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place....As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." I am pretty sure the Mueller Investigation and soon-to-be Counter Report are "notable and almost certain to take place." This is a bit of a stretch due to the semantics of "far in the future" however it is fair to say that the Mueller Investigation and the Special Counsel Counter Report will *most likely* be out within a year.

I am not speculating anything. Everything has been cited. Aviartm (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all clear to me that this supposed counter-report is "almost certain to take place"; as far as I can tell the cites on the article amount to Trump saying it's happening, associates of Trump saying it's happening, and newspapers reporting that Trump says it's happening. Statements that originate from Trump are not particularly noted for their reliability.

The Mueller investigation is not "almost certain to take place"; it is already in progress. Perhaps you mean Mueller's final summary of the investigation is "almost certain to take place"? That seems true - it certainly seems far more likely to take place than something Trump tweeted about - but unless I am very much mistaken, we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either.

I cannot see that there is any content of value in this page that could not be added to pages related to the Mueller investigation. A note to the effect that Trump claims a "counter-report" is being prepared would suffice, if there isn't one there already. Once the counter-report exists, if it ever does, it would merit an article - perhaps even once reliable sources generally agree it will exist, and are willing to at least speculate on its specific contents. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell and have seen numerous tweets by Trump that either occurred or foreshadowed what was to happen. And of course, I was referring to the conclusion of the Mueller Investigation. My apologies.

"we don't have a page about Mueller's currently non-existent final summary of his investigation, either." Because the conclusions will most likely fall into the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) page. But if the conclusions are very lengthy and large, then a separate page might ensue. And the reporting of a counter report being in the works has been reported for close to half a year now. And the progress of the counter report has been reported too. I believe there is more than enough reporting and notability and information regarding the counter report for it to merit a Wikipedia page. Aviartm (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it hasn't been written, I think the report meets the GNG, and if the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) article didn't exist, it would be a viable article. But given the existence of that article, I think this should be merged with that one. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Guettarda. However, we do not know how long the findings of Mueller are. As I stated prior, it might need its own Wikipedia page but we will have to see. And if someone is going to counter you, kinda implies that they are going to counter your main points and more. I believe further down the road, the Special Counsel counter report will need its own Wikipedia page. Those are just my thoughts. Aviartm (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I'm confident that report will need its own article. I believe that deletion would be inappropriate - the report meets the GNG, and almost certainly will eventually need to be spun out into a separate article. But for now, I believe it should be upmerged, "without prejudice", as they say. Once there's more to write, spin it back off into a stand-alone article. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, how do we go about doing that necessarily? Do we do a full content or selective paste? Also, what will happen to the current page? Will it be temporarily be offline once there is more info or...? (E: It appears that we "Delete all the text from the source page and replace it with..."with both procedures. If that is the case, maybe I should archive the current page to act as a template?) Aviartm (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the AFD to finish; and don't try and do the merge yourself, you'll make a mess of it. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The process is pretty straightforward. And yes, I am waiting until this concludes. And I am also waiting for Guettarda to respond. Aviartm (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviartm: I'm not sure what you're asking. If the conclusion from this AFD is "merge", I expect that the closer will either do the merge, or tag it for someone to merge. At that point, it's pretty much up to the person doing the merge, and editors on the SC investigation page. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Aviartm (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) or a related article per Guettarda. AdA&D ★ 15:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section that I have made prior to this AFD on Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). Btw, it says in the AFD process..."After a discussion period (usually 7 days), an administrator then evaluates the response and takes action as needed." How extensive is this action? Just the conclusion or the actual merging of the 2 pages? I have not published the pages yet but I did the merging process if I can.Aviartm (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umedia VFX

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP EDIT- User who created article has umedia at the end of their username. Seems like an instance of UPE. Kb03 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I take on paid edits occasionally and if I had been given this company, I wouldn't have accepted the job. Impressive list of films, but unsubstantiated and poorly referenced (none in-line) and far too many social media links. At best, needs a thorough cleanup, but deletion is probably the best option. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Austrian Academy of Sciences. Note: this may end up being a selective merge. There's a suggestion that the lead and "History and significance" sections are the best bits for merging, but I'll leave that up to whoever does the actual merge. The key point is to only merge material which is adequately sourced.

None of the people who argued for a merge sounded 100% sure that Austrian Academy of Sciences was the best marge target. If a better target emerges, please discuss on the talk pages and ping the discussants from this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Worlds

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "This journal is indexed in databases which only accept high quality peer-reviewed publications and which have strict admission criteria to ensure this (ERIH Plus, DOAJ). A number of the most distinguished scholars in the field of Medieval Studies have already published articles in this journal and the journal‘s contribution to the scholarly discussion is widely recognised: https://merovingianworld.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/open-access-the-global-eminent-life". However, none of the databases listed are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals (e.g., DOAJ is only "selective" in the sense that it does not include predatory journals). That some of the authors are notable is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). The link provided is to a WordPress blog by a person who has published in this journal. The article has a deceptively long list of "references", most of which are to the journal itself and the rest are the above-mentioned blog and non-selective indexing services. Journal was started in 2015, so at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? I agree this isn't notable, but... Austrian Academy of Sciences might be a merge target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references to the journal itself are only used to verify the issue themes mentioned, the references to the indexing services are only used to verify that the journal is indeed indexed in these databases. The references in the main text, however, which gives "routine, uncontroversial details of a journal" are from "official institutional and professional sources" (as demanded by WP:NCriteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). Namely 1) a reference to the publishing institute to verify the statement of ownership, 2) one reference to the Austrian Research Funding Agency (FWF), which reviewed and monitored the journal in its first three publishing years, to verify the scope of the journal, 3) two references to the Austrian Research Funding Agency to verify the statement that the journal was launched with initial funding of said agency, 4) a reference to a professional journal dedicated to news and information about Medieval Studies to verify the statement when the journal was launched. Kunstförderer^(T) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may all be true, but nothing of that is evidence of notability, either by meeting WP:NJournals or by meeting WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Randykitty said, the issue here is not WP:V, but rather WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal may meet these criteria for notability from WP:JOURNALCRIT:

Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

Re criterion 1, I note that:

The journal is cited as an example of historiographically significant attempts to challenge chronological and geographical boundaries in historical study: Stuart Airlie, Maud Anne Bracke and Rosemary Elliot, 'Editorial', Gender & History, 28 (2016), 275-82 (p. 281, fn. 19) doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12205.
The journal is cited as evidence that 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale has become a hot topic in Medieval Studies': Walter Pohl, 'Introduction: Meanings of Community in Medieval Eurasia', in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 1-23 (pp. 1-2); https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w76w6c.5.
Issue 4 is reviewed in Alfons Labisch, 'Molecular Historiography–neue Gegenstände und neue Methoden einer neuen Geschichtsschreibung?', NTM: Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften, Technik Und Medizin, 26(3), 351–366; doi:10.1007/s00048-018-0198-7.
The journal is presented as evidence that 'there are new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500': Catherine Holmes and Naomi Standen, 'Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages', Past & Present, 238, Issue suppl. 13 (1 November 2018), 1–44, doi:10.1093/pastj/gty030.

Given how seldom journals are the subject of academic commentary per se, this isn't a bad set of citations to my mind.

Re criterion 2, I looked up some of the journal's early articles on Google Scholar and several have 4-6 citations; that may not sound like much in some fields, but in history, that's good going. I did some similar searches of articles from Past & Present from the same year and they aren't cited much more frequently, and Past & Present is certainly a major journal. Alarichall (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past & Present is also indexed in several selective database, and has a history of 70+ years. This is a relatively new journal, indexed nowhere selective. Quite likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but see also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @Headbomb: Thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to suggest that this journal is notable for the same reasons as Past & Present. I was just trying to get a benchmark for what 'frequently cited' looks like in this journal's field, in relation to notability criterion 2. I still think it meets the stated criteria. The citations I gathered for criterion 1 suggest that the foundation of the journal is a singificant step in a new historiographical development in medieval studies, so that particular claim to notability doesn't have much to do with the journal's longevity. I'll try popping a bit more prose into the entry to spell out how this might work. Alarichall (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the following to the article, hopefully helping explain how the article meets Criterion 1 (and also generally widening the source-base of the article):

Scholarly commentators have found the journal noteworthy for its programmatic efforts to change the parameters of Medieval Studies, making the field less Eurocentric and attempting to integrate it into comparative history, world history, and interdisciplinary history-writing.^[1] They noted that it was promoting a new trend for 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale'^[2] and numbered it among 'new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500'.^[3] The journal's push for a new interdisciplinarity was particularly noted in a review of its fourth issue, on the historiographical consequences of archaeogenetic research.^[4]

Alarichall (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stuart Airlie, Maud Anne Bracke and Rosemary Elliot, 'Editorial', Gender & History, 28 (2016), 275-82 (p. 281, fn. 19) doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12205.
^ Walter Pohl, 'Introduction: Meanings of Community in Medieval Eurasia', in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 1-23 (pp. 1-2); https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w76w6c.5.
^ Catherine Holmes and Naomi Standen, 'Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages', Past & Present, 238, Issue suppl. 13 (1 November 2018), 1–44, doi:10.1093/pastj/gty030.
^ Alfons Labisch, 'Molecular Historiography–neue Gegenstände und neue Methoden einer neuen Geschichtsschreibung?', NTM: Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften, Technik Und Medizin, 26(3), 351–366; doi:10.1007/s00048-018-0198-7.

Comment: I appreciate your efforts, but I am afraid that none of the sources that you list show real notability. At least one is not independent (Pohl is one of the editors) and all are in fact what we call "in-passing mentions". None is an in-depth analysis of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, though frankly I don't see that the encyclopaedia stands to gain much from deleting this article (and others like it) either. So what's your objection re criterion 2? The journal is frequently cited by reliable sources. Ta! Alarichall (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re #2: a smathering of citations is to be expected for any journal and is in and of itself not an indication of notability. This kind of citation data would not even be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for what the encyclopedia gains, that's not really a matter to be discussed here. Suffice it to say that that argument goes for any article not meeting our notability requirements (I could write an article about my cleaning lady, what's the harm for leaving that float around...) More seriously, there are journals that really should not be listed anywhere. To keep those out, we need clear and objective inclusion criteria. Which we then have to apply to all journals, to avoid a situation where editors like us have to make a subjective judgment about whether or not a particular journal is worthy of inclusion or not. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the sourcing is a bit shy of establishing stand-alone notability, but as Headbomb noted above, Austrian Academy of Sciences is a viable merge target. The lead and the "History and significance" section could be slotted in there, making a new section called "Publications". XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination, preferably to the article on Austrian Academy of Sciences, whatever is adequately sourced. A case of zu früh. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. Most content seems to have already been merged there. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Middlemas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. 4th place xfactor finish does not make one notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yep, I take full responsibility as the creator of the article that it should be turned into a redirection to her section on the series 13 list. Delete the page lol.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a little digging. She was in a band called Loud N Proud. She is also a song writer for herself. She has released songs in 2017 and 2018.SWP13 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SWP13: Can you explain how she passes WP:MUSICBIO? — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 17:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the main contributor of Emily Middlemas, I propose that the page should be kept. According to WP:MUSICBIO, section 1, Middlemas passes. She has been featured in several online and print publications. Also, section 12 is passed in some respects. She was one of the finalists on The X Factor; that in itself is an achievement. — Joesimnett (talk) 17;43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Criterion 12 would apply if there had been a TV show or radio programme about Emily Middlemas. For The X Factor, number 9 applies. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 17:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @AnemoneProjectors: Criterion 4, however, also applies to Middlemas, as she has gone on two national tours; The X Factor Live Tour (2017) and The Memory Lane Tour (2018). — Joesimnett (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Criterion 4 says "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" not "has gone on tour". The X Factor Live Tour isn't her own tour, it's a part of The X Factor that the majority of finalists are invited to each year so doesn't give her additional notability outside of The X Factor. I Googled the other tour and got only 98 results, most of which are not independent reliable sources. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 19:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" !votes are not very compelling at this point and could perhaps be fleshed out a bit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree that the proper place on wikipedia for this subject is on the List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. Outside of her involvement with that show/tour, there simply aren't enough examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Coverage that does exist in reliable sources are routine coverage accorded to any contestant who made the finals. The keep arguments above fall under WP:EXIST. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in muktiple national newspapers which is not routine coverage as appearing repeatedly in one of the top five most popular shows in the UK and making the finals is not routine for a singer. There is also coverage in rs of her singles so it is more than WP:BLP1E Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is routine coverage for any X Factor contestant. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 18:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this is absolutely routine coverage for any contestant and she does not otherwise pass WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Achchhe Din

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

Non-notable short film, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It's described as a runner up in a competition for amateur local filmmakers under the age of 25. Flooded with them hundreds 12:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM & article seems like promotional. Azkord (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L V Muralikrishna Reddy

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

Seems like a resume, Fails WP:GNG.I couldn't find reliable "independent" sources other than the pages of the organizations he is affiliated with.

He has also been listed on google scholar, although only 2 of his papers were cited by others, one was cited 34 times, the second one once. The article's original creator was blocked indefinitely for having a promotional username, and the edits and the edit comments on the page seem to indicate COI for multiple editors. Daiyusha (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very promotional, relies on primary sources, fails WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no real independent coverage, almost all the edits on the article are a sock farm promoting the subject of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotough

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

Google news produces no hits on this subject. Google Books had some hits, but none seemed to be a discussion of this subject. Does not appear to meet GNG or WP:ORG. A loose noose (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as usual with European Framework projects, this will only be notable to the extent it produced notable results. Just having been created in the hope of doing so is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 7 January 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. Michig (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Me (TV series)

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

Non-notable TV series, fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:TVSERIES. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find anything reliable about the topic at all. Flooded with them hundreds 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet more non-notable kid's filler where a commercial break would go on a regular network. Nate • (chatter) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, television shows are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist(ed) — the inclusion test for television shows requires showing some evidence of reliable source coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surojit Chatterjee

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

A non-notable musician whose page is promotional in nature Zubin12 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of the problem with combing through sources is that the subject shares his name with a Google executive. The subject does have an entry at AllMusic, but it is empty, and the linked album has no review and is a compilation work. The sources from the article that I could see, [1] [2] [3], are enough to confer WP:GNG. If the article needs a rewrite to remove puffery and promotion, that's a separate issue, but deleting the article is not a necessary goal to achieve that end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Walter that it meets WP:GNG. Here's another significant mention in an RS: 1. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article is promotional, the subject is notable Spiderone 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eilean (yacht)

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

Only notable because of one pop video, non notable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... there is fairly extensive coverage in more than one reliable source (especially the WSJ article). I think it boaderline, but it is on the notable side of the line. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV in multiple RSs. I've had my differences with Steve but I think he's ultimately an even-handed and honest type. This is certainly a borderline case and I can see how reasonable people might differ on it. My rationale for keeping is ultimately from the nomination itself - if you state "only notable for X, otherwise not notable", well, then it must be notable, if only for that one thing. WP:1E doesn't apply as this is not a biographical article. There's no other obvious merge/redirect target so the information appears to be in the right place. FOARP (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been noted in RS for more than "just being in a pop video". Passes GNG. - wolf 10:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Stupid nomination. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Smellie (geologist)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 11:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Wikipedia have any policies on how soon an article can be renominate for AfD? It was only 3 days ago that it was first nominated, on the spurious rationale that it was a hoax .... now here we are again. At least we are given a guideline this time, though no explanation for why it fails it .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, I fail to see why another AfD, days back, on a frivolous ground shall be grounds to debar this AfD on an entirely different locus. Give me an explanation as to how he passes either. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia appears to have no policy about it, of course it doesn't debar it. Personally, I think there should be a policy limiting the number and timing of AfDs, given the time it takes to assess them adequately and respond. I would prefer not to have had the frivolous nomination either, but again, although WP:BEFORE is expected, there's no process to ensure that a nominator has done it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. On what basis does an FRSE fail WP:NACADEMIC? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nom has failed to provide a delete rationale that addresses the keep decision arrived at just days ago, particularly the sources identified in it. My personal view is that delete proposals without at least basic evidence of having done WP:BEFORE (it can be as little as "I did WP:BEFORE and found nothing") and which do not provide a basic argument for deletion ("Fails *Insert policy here*" is not enough - you must say how unless it's very obvious) should be strongly discouraged. There is far too much "I want this article gone, please delete it for me"-style AfDing at the moment. FOARP (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Smellie was the curator of the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, a major Natural History museum. He's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that page template is not properly templated, it is NOT linking through to this page. Instead of fixing the template, I recommend that the next editor coming to the page close it as SPEEDY. I have added some sources to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC. Probably not a true speedy keep candidate, but the forecast calls for WP:SNOW. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norbornene-mediated meta-C-H activation

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

reason 1) completely based on primary literature 2) the creator has a massive conflict of interest as this is their research (declared personally in an edit on Jin-Quan Yu reason 3) The contents can be and should be included here instead Norbornene EvilxFish (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A puffed up article on an ultra narrow topic organized as a device to highlight an ambitious professor by his obedient, admiring (syncophantic) student. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-yet-sufficiently notable on its own variant of well-known other notable topics. Alternate merge target would be Carbon–hydrogen bond activation. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity where narrow and original topics are welcomed. It is probably excessive to merge it to norbornene. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this appropriate given the COI of the main author? EvilxFish (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gesudaraz I

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

Similar to Syed Soleman Shah, which was deleted as it appeared to be a hoax. This article is also suspected of being a hoax. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#Possible hoax on Syed Soleman Shah also. IWI (chat) 11:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also suspected hoaxes from the same author.

IWI (chat) 11:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also nominating this article:

IWI (chat) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as hoaxes Spiderone 21:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IWI asked me to check the sources for this article. Most of them are not live links, but of the ones that are, this is what I found:

Ref 2 is in Farsi and the file doesn’t support ‘find in page’.
Ref 8 I can’t get to open.
Ref 9 is in English and is a proper google book link, so we can see it does support the content of the article. There at least was a person of this name and the bare bones of the article are based in fact.
Ref 11 is in English but does not support the content of the article
Ref 18 says it’s in Arabic but it isn’t - it appears to be Farsi. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.
Ref 21 I can’t get the link to open.
Ref 22 is to an archived book in Arabic. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.
Ref 23 is to an archived book in Farsi. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.

I also checked the refs for Syed Adam Banuri and found that:

Ref 1 does refer to Sheikh Adam Banuri but does not mention the dates contained in the article
Ref 2 also refers to Banuri (so he definitely existed) but provides the Hijri date for his death of 1053 (ie 1643) and says nothing of his birth date. This ref supports the text in the article giving his death as in 1643 in Medina, but the birth date is unsourced and impossible.
Ref 3 again clearly indicates that the historical person existed.
Ref 4 is a snippet view with material not related to the part of the article it allegedly supports.
Ref 6 supports the text
Ref 7 supports the text
Ref 11 refers to Banuri but does not mention Shah Jihan sending him on the Hajj
Ref 12 is in Urdu so I can’t read it
Ref 13 is in some dodgy file format I’m not opening
Ref 14 repeats his date of death but does not support his place of burial.

Mccapra (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for Syed Qaaf - one is dead and the other does not seem to mention syed Qaaf, though the text doesn’t render properly in some sections so it’s possible there’s a ref in there I can’t see. Mccapra (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra: Just so you know, you mentioned doing text searches in some scanned books which aren't possible to search in (they're just a bundle of photographs, as far as the computer is concerned), so the search returning no results doesn't indicate one way or another whether the subject is mentioned in the book. (That said, it would be silly to expect anyone to hunt through an entire book by hand for a mention of the subject, so these refs without page numbers are kind of useless...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes thanks I realise this. In fact though all but one of the sources I checked (See above) did support ‘find in page’ so I can be certain the key term was missing. Mccapra (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cool :) Thanks for taking the time to check them by the way Mccapra! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Simply fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above, with many thanks to Mccapra for carrying out all this verification. Fish+Karate 09:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m happy to do this whenever needed. Mccapra (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Mccapra. Catrìona (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless someone can find some better sources to demonstrate they meet WP:V. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gope boards. Sandstein 14:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gope (Papua)

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

There are currently no references in this page. I don't think it's verifiable unless references are provided. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books comes up with quite a few hits: this in particular looks pretty useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Merge with Gope boards - good spot, didn't see that, no point having two article for the same thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or just redirect to exiting page Gope boards. Noahhoward (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gope boards, though I'm not sure which name would be most useful. This article has some information which Gope boards does not (the name Kwoi); Gope boards is longer than this one, and has more info overall. Neither has any references, but the one found by Noahhoward looks excellent, and no doubt there are others. (And as for the AfD rationale - that is exactly what WP:BEFORE is for. AfD is not cleanup!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist to sustain an article. Prefer to merge with Gope boards or a more inclusive term that also covers Titi ebiha and Kwoi perhaps Spirit board (currently a redirect to Ouia board). Vexations (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gope boards as a functional WP:ATD-M. Note that sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus that ongoing notability was established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nsofwa Petronella Sampa

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

Non-notable activist nothing significant from the references provided. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article to bring her education and career more up to date. I have included a couple more references, one from the US Embassy in Zambia, which do not add much more to the extensive coverage in the 3 sources that had already been included. As those 3 articles were entirely about the subject, date from 2014-2018, are from two independent sources and 3 different journalists, I believe that she does meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As she is young, and working with young people, much of her activism is through sources which Wikipedia does not consider reliable (eg Facebook) - however, she has received significant coverage from mainstream media. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now, per RebeccaGreen. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage over time means she passes GNG. I also deorphaned the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article references several mainstream media articles directly about the subject. Notability was solidly proven even at the time of nomination, the nomination has no validity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandar Jàmsandêkar

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

Fails WP:BIO. Award may be notable enough. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of independent notability and the award doesn't seem to be well-known as required by WP:BIO. The article was previously created under Mandar Jamsandekar by a different user which Rosguill moved to draftspace. The single-purpose author almost certainly has a Conflict of interest, which should be declared. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nandamuri Suhasini

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

Fails WP:NPOL as yet to win any major election or hold any major office. All the coverage she has is about her being related to some notable figures or her being one of many candidates at recent election. Notability can not be inherited. This link verifies that she did not win the election that this article significantly talks about. Hitro talk 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, and she fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 08:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with SportingFlyer, notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defeated candidate for public office. When 85% of more of the article is on who her notable family members were, it is a clear sign the subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (NAC) (non-admin closure) Nightfury 13:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Sofia

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

Zero notably fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Many dead references, the rest are name drops. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race ETA: got here via list of women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What metric are you using to measure notability? Seems way too subjective and the WP:BIO page does little to actually explain what is expected. But, should we slavishly adhere to WP:BIO, it suggests that entertainers with a large fan base or a significant "cult" following are notable. Yara Sofia has a large fan base. Lack of active cites is concerning, however. Ausymptote (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ausymptote, like every other on Wikipedia, the facts must be shown to be true. Find reliable secondary sources from third parties that describe the large fan base, in an impartial manner, and the article will be show be notable. This is my last comment on this. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ausymptote It is a bit subjective. The coverage needs to be "significant," which most editors understand to mean that an article needs to be about the person or talk about them at length rather than simply listing them or mentioning them. The source needs to be "reliable" which most editors understand to mean at minimum local print or tv media, or if an online-only source, at minimum a major regional/special-interest outlet. Blogs, Youtube, etc. don't count. Straight interviews don't count. And having a large fan base or cult following isn't by itself enough; that fan base or cult following needs to have been talked about, again in a reliable source. So it's not enough for her blog to get lots of hits or her twitter to have lots of followers. Someone has to have MENTIONED the fact her blog has lots of hits or her twitter feed has lots of followers. Someone has to be talking about her/her fans/her cult following at some length in a reliable source. In general many editors will agree that even as few as three such sources shows notability, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule; at that minimum, many editors will want to know that those three sources really are both clearly reliable and provide definitely significant coverage. valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to just make sure everyone is aware that this topic might be at risk for brigading Oath2order (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yara is a public figure. According to the Wikipedia notability guidelines,Yara falls under all three bullets.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.“

Yara has been on multiple tv shows, has a cult following, produces notable stage performances and other products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMGshNicholas (talk • contribs) Incorrectly placed at top of page; moved by RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OMGshNicholas unfortunately none of the sources say those things about her. I've gone through all the sources (many of which were dead links, which I removed) and none of them are reliable sources of significant coverage. The ones that are reliable barely mention Sofia, and the ones that give her significant coverage are not reliable. She was on a notable reality/elimination television show twice, but she didn't win either season which means she isn't automatically notable for that. She may very well have a large fan base, but no one is mentioning that it's unusually large for a member of the gay community or for a drag queen. If she's made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment, I'm not finding it mentioned in reliable sources. valereee (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – I feel that WP:BLP1E may apply here. I may change my vote if people can successfully argue otherwise. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Changing vote to Weak Keep — I feel like there is some coverage to help for GNG in what is mentioned below now but I may revisit later to see if there is enough. The coverage isn’t from any major national publications however this definitely helps to diverge away from BLP1E, my main concern from before. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Redditaddict69:. Given the info below, are you still leaning Weak Delete? I am not sure if you're following this conversation. I'm not incredibly invested in this article, as I didn't follow it and don't believe I've edited it before (I could be wrong on that), but I do think we'd be doing WP a disservice if we aren't looking at all the information available about a subject. Either way, hope you're well. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the nominator of this article has done their due diligence. A cursory Google search turns up coverage of Yara Sofia as the sole subject in NewNowNext, Seattle Gay News, OutinSA, and Hotspots Magazine, none of which have currently been included in the article (as of me writing this comment). Additional coverage (with Yara not being the sole subject) includes World of Wonder and others. They've appeared on RPDR on two different seasons (winning Miss Congeniality on one of them), guest starred on a third season of RPDR, appeared on the television show Skin Wars, appeared in a video game, had a show at RuPaul's Drag Con, and headlined a NYE party. I think that meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 6 January 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 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RapReviews

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

Website does not appear notable and the article for it does not establish its notability. Koyyo (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability under WP:NWEB. Ifnord (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedAwning Group

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Coverage is either in passing, or comes from press releases and their reprints/rewrites/WP:ROUTINE start up news. Yet another WP:CORPSPAM created by an undisclosed paid for editor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found -- what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Moving to draft for improvement such as proving notability with extra references to significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fay McAlpine

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Fails WP:PROF. As the artist, she also seems to fail WP:CREATIVE - no awards, and very limited coverage - not seeing anything beyond what's in the article, and the only possibly in-depth article on her ([4]) is paywalled and I cannot access it (I am also not even sure it is in-depth at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her stamp designs are held in the national museum; she is a judge for a national award; these seem to satisfy notability. PamD 13:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the stamps there because of who is the artist or because the Museum collects all stamps? If the latter, it's like saying that having a book in a national library is sufficient for notability - but in fact national libraries have a duty to collect a copy of each book printed. Being a part of the most inclusive collection is a pretty low bar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the stamps are in the museum is indicative of the importance of stamp design so that having designed those stamps is indicative of notability. PamD 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Article does not meet WP:Creative. While she has stamps on exhibition, the museum looks like it has a sizeable collection of them. The article Great New Zealand designers you've never heard of is not available (PressReader which is where the link takes you has 0 results for the article. Also no results for an online search, no results searching within the magazine.) She is a judge at a media awards, but not a winner. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one museum is not "several museums", as specified in WP:ARTIST. SIGCOV was not found in a search. GNG fail.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I open the link to the article 'Great New Zealand designers you've never heard of', I see in Press Reader the title of the article, date, author and journal (North & South), a Locked icon (ie the whole article is not shown), and the beginning of the section about Fay McAlpine, "A Wellington graphic designer whose passion for typography has influenced generations of y....". The complete article is not freely available, but the section on the subject of this Wikipedia article certainly exists, and even that fragment suggests that it goes towards meeting WP:CREATIVE #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". If this article is not kept, I would suggest Draftify - it is a very new article, which seems to have been created in mainspace by a new Wikipedian, who may well have access to sources which could substantiate the claims of notability. Please do not bite the newcomers RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with draftyfing (sp? :)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about draftifying. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, agree, as the article stands McAlpine doesnt appear to quite meet notability, a gsearch brings up other info like joint designer of publications, 2014 joint tutor of the year awarded by International Society of Typographic Designers, and a few pikkies but stronger sources would be helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the article is brand new, maybe just needs work. Note the editor is also very new, just started editing last week and all of her articles have been challenged. Let's not bite the newbies. Got here from list of women-related AfD. valereee (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to give page creator time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems like a good choice, subject has won several awards and there are enough references to show some degree of notability. With additional references, I think she'd pass WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton International Preschool

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

Non-notable preschool. Redirection to the city of existence has been contested. WP:PROMO applies too. Not able to find anything substantial enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High schools are usually notable (because there's enough WP:RS coverage to get them through WP:GNG), middle and junior schools rarely are, and kindergartens almost never. This isn't one of the exceptions. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have to see some pretty substantial coverage to find a preschool notable. Ifnord (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the listed third-party sources cover the subject in-depth, and I couldn't identify any. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MealEnders

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

Almost totally unknown & unsuccessful alt med company -- the content is promotional, and does not show notability. The editor(s) appear to be undeclared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, clearly advertising created by an undisclosed paid editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply a promotional article. Delete as per WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DGG. There is no significant coverage here, being on Shark Tank doesn't make a company notable. shoy (reactions) 13:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all coverage of this product seems to be in relation to the show Shark Tank, with almost nothing significant outside of it. --Jayron 32 14:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only evidence for the product is one clinical trial without a placebo control. Utter garbage. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a promotional article, with a very false balance of unreliable sources. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original author of this article, I've requested that this article be deleted multiple times and it keeps getting reversed.LTMajorPayne (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rescued this article because I thought it might be salvagable. I did the research and came up empty handed. Sorry to waste anyone's time.Luke Kindred (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IGLOO Software

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

The article seems to be fairly promotional and has a COI issue with one of the main editors. When searching up the company, I was met with a plethora of press releases and a few minor mentions here and there. Fails WP:ORG FiendYT ★ 06:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Garden variety WP:CORPSPAM that has only in passing/press-release type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DWYK

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

Probable hoax. No evidence that this station exists. It is not listed the 2018 list of FM stations by the NTC. That list also does not identify any FM station located in the province of Bataan (Region 3). Bluemask (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A PROD was declined in 2016[5]. --Bluemask (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio stations do sometimes go out of business or change their call signs, so it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the station existed in the past even if it doesn't still exist now — but we have seen hoax articles created about radio stations that never really existed at all, as well as stations that got license approvals on paper but never actually launched before their approvals expired and thus never actually broadcast at all. So we don't simply assume that a radio station passes WP:NMEDIA in the absence of adequate verification in reliable sources — the inclusion test for a radio station is not satisfied just because the article text says so, but requires reliable sources to properly support that the station actually meets the notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax. I don't see it on the 2011 list either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references in the article, no online references that I can find. Ifnord (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The A to Z Symphony

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

Article is about a direct-to-video DVD release. External links are to self-published sources. Article has an 'awards' section but these are of dubious notability. Almost a candidate for a PROD but there is enough of a claim of notability for me to want to put this up for discussion. Deletion criteria: GNG, NFILM Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including three independent reviews in Family Time magazine, Booklist magazine and Midwest Book Review included in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial non-RS sources in article, can't find anything significant in search to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. I am dubious about the sources cited in the article since these are actually uploaded to another website (cmkids.org), and not from the original source. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to lack coverage in independent sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:39, 1 January 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. The "keep" !votes are not very persuasive. In addition, this AfD suffered from a lack of participation, so no prejudice to nominating this again in a few months, if improvement is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoco Technologies

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of affiliated, routine coverage, and rehash of press releases. A WP:BEFORE search threw the same coverage Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am the author of the article, there is a significant coverage and independent sources in Google News, when we look with the keyword "Yoco" Yoco in Google News Regards, MathieuPaul1977 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathieuPaul1977 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i will move the article from "Yoco Technologies" to "Yoco" since it the more used name in internet. Regards, MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references (ie Forbes), they are many other independent sources talking about Yoco in News. MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Nnot many articles in wikipedia of African fintech, and this one seems to have quite good coverage. SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state what sources "seem" to be good coverage and how they meet notability guidelines. I would suggest doing a bit more editing to try and understand policy and guidelines better before discussing deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, i improved the article by adding more information and more reliable sources, like a new one from "Jeune Afrique" and another from IOL. i will change the search bar to put the right name of the subject "Yoco" instead of "Yoco Technologies" like i did before. Regards, MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bingelhelm

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

I tried everything—from searching in English, German, and my University database—but I could not find other significant pieces of coverage. Serial killers are not inherently notable and nothing else can suggest this individual meets GNG. I give some leeway for older subjects but a single source not specifically on the person falls short in my opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://books.google.de/books?id=B3AlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT45&dq=%22Simon+Bingelhelm%22&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwkeKktp3fAhXOqIsKHUVXAo8Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Simon%20Bingelhelm%22&f=false http://www.vintagebuch.de/serienmoerder-deutschland-von-juergen-bartsch-olaf-daeter-volker-eckert-fritz-haarmann-thomas-holst-peter-kuerten-bis-mittagsmoerder/ indicates to me that the person in question continues to appear in printmedia 400 years on. The single reference mentioned by the TheGracefulSlick a summary of older sources in a local paper. But there is more than just local interest. Agathoclea (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and leave tag for sourcing in place. serial killer from 500 years ago comes complete with tourist cave where he allegedly murdered people, medieval painting of him being drawn and quartered on pinterest [6] and medieval drawing of him being drawn and quartered [7] on wikivisually. Can't delete the fact that we are a gory species.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realize, "it's interesting" isn't really a good reason to keep, but this article is. References may be harder to find secondary to age, and the article appears to have been roughly translated, but I think time will improve it. Ifnord (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to (Don't Fear) The Reaper. Content can be merged from history once it is reliably sourced. Sandstein 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Fear the Reaper: The Best of Blue Öyster Cult

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

An obscure compilation, not even with an AllMusic review. The only “source” I found include discogs and amazon, none of which are notable. No indications that this meets GNG or placed on a notable chart. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be two albums with almost the exact same name that are being confused here: the one linked above by theGracefulSlick, entitled "The Best of Blue Öyster Cult: Don't Fear the Reaper", which was released in 1983, and the one called "Don't Fear the Reaper [Sony Music Special Products]", which was released in 2000. The title of the former of these albums better matches the title of this article, but the article has the release date (February 8, 2000) of the latter, while also having the album cover of the former. This needs to be sorted out, partly since the latter album actually does have an AllMusic review. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer scrutiny it is clear that the track listing for this album also matches that of the 1983 album, not the 2000 one. In short, it is clear that this album was released in 1983, not 2000, in which case the statement by theGracefulSlick that this album has no AllMusic review is correct, but the release date for the album in the article now is not. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known "Best Of" by the band, which has been re-released in multiple formats since appearing on early CD in 1983. According to WorldCat, there were at least 8 editions published from 1983 onward. Here, for example, is the 1983 cassette tape. In 2016, there was even a limited edition Double-Album on blue vinyl release. --Leflyman^Talk 19:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon and WorldCat do not prove the assertion of being “well-known”—reliable, significant coverage does.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Originally claimed in the AFD it was "an obscure compilation" -- which it is not, as demonstrated by the number of times the album has been re-released. Perhaps if not familiar with the Blue Oyster Cult and are only looking for Internet sources, it seems to be "obscure." For a "Best Of" released in 1983, that has been in continuous release since, that's an amusing claim. This may be a case of systemic bias; as you may not find sources for things like Best Of albums which were discussed in print before the Internet existed.

Note that the article Best Of includes many such compilation albums from numerous artists, which is expanded in the List of greatest hits albums. Would you argue that all of those are likewise obscure and non-notable? --Leflyman^Talk 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman the onus is on you to present reliable sources. We cannot work on the belief sources may possibly exist in print; that argument—something we tend to avoid—could be thrown into any discussion on notability to get around addressing the issue. As for your question, that is a straw man arguement since I never claimed that all “Best of”/greatest hits albums are inherently obscure and unnotable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, actually, the onus is upon you to demonstrate why WorldCat is not a "reliable source." Likewise, the point about the Amazon listing demonstrates that a new version does exist, in vinyl, with actual reviews, which like those at AllMusic show that it is not "obscure." WP:ATA is an essay, and while it may feel appropriate to reference it, I'd suggest it's best to avoid trying to cite essays as though they are policy. As to my final point, you have chosen a single "Best Of" album by a well-known band to target, which is no different than the hundreds of other Best Ofs in the category List of greatest hits albums and Category:Greatest_hits_albums_by_year.

Your claim for removing this article breaks down to 1) The album is "an obscure compilation"; 2) that it doesn't even have a review on AllMusic; 3) that you weren't able to find any sources, other than discog and Amazon, which you state are not "notable". I have shown that none of these claims are accurate. Perhaps if you were talking about later released compilations, The 70s: Blue Oyster Cult or The Essential Blue Oyster Cult-- both of which actually have AllMusic reviews, the latter even having an article -- then I would have agreed that they might be "obscure." But this was the first compilation released for the band, and continues in release, as the library holdings show.--Leflyman^Talk 17:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to (Don't Fear) The Reaper, a brief discussion of this album will be a useful addition to the article about this band's most notable song. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Rzvas (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge may work but I caution editors that the sources presented here are not reliable and hence unsuitable to a merge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Since the article was improved, opinions are split, and this has already had 4 weeks of discussion. Michig (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Erik Gould

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

All of the sources for this article on a journalist are his own articles and are not WP:INDEPENDENT. He's won Pulitzer Center grants ... which are not Pulitzer Prizes ... so no inherent notability. Wolfson5 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. Therefore, the subject fails WP:NBIO; he is simply not notable enough to warrant an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any independent sources (but found a lot of things he wrote, which don't count per Wolfson5) to establish notability --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass any of the criteria listed in WP:JOURNALIST, the relevant notability guideline for this kind of writer. - tucoxn\^talk 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article was flagged for deletion, I have added a large number of reference citations independent of Gould's writing, including reportage from CNN, Adweek, Bustle and other news outlets on Gould's journalism. I have also added works that have cited Gould, including congressional reports and scholarly publications. I believe these additions further establish the subject's notability and relevance.Dee Roberts (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has received significant copy editing, which includes the addition of several references, as stated in the !vote above this relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The citations recently added by the article creator seem to be about stories by the article subject and not about the article subject himself. They doesn't seem to prove notability under the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST, the relevant notability guideline for this kind of writer. Here are those criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The closest is criterion #1, "is widely cited by peers" but what is required to meet that is coverage about him which analyzes his significance in that regard. The sources added simply show that his work exists, as opposed to telling people who he is as a person. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. - tucoxn\^talk 15:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The examples of works citing his articles do serve to show that the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST #1, "The person is ... widely cited by peers or successors." Citation does not require coverage about the author of the work cited, nor analysis of an author's significance. From Citation, "A citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source. .... Citations have several important purposes: to uphold intellectual honesty (or avoiding plagiarism), to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way, and to help the reader gauge the strength and validity of the material the author has used." Coverage about an author would be considered literary biography; analysis of an author's significance would be considered literary criticism. Neither is mentioned in WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy journalist but does not yet meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 2 January 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 and redirect to University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences. Deleted content can be provided to anyone wishing to consider using it to expand the target article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasound Education Group

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

no evidence for the notability of the research group. We rarely make articles for small research groups of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent notability of this group appears not to be demonstrable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are only mentions, which does not serve to fulfill notability requirements. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences#Research. Not notable in its own right but does deserve some due weight material in its already existing parent's article, that could do with some extra content too. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possible merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Aoziwe. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just one research group among many. Why list this group in the article on its faculty and not all the others? And listing all the others, too, would be both UNDUE and against NOTADIRECTORY. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 1 January 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Songsar

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

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Questia, including by Bengali-script name, found two sentences about this Songsar in reliable sources.[8][9] The film exists, but doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Worldbruce (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent coverage to allow it to pass the WP:GNG or any of the NFILM principles and categories.^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:23, 1 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 03:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water Stations

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Unsuitable as an article right now, but may have potential. PrussianOwl (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrussianOwl: The article has been expanded since the time you !voted above. Just a note that you may want to check it out now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG (see, e.g., [10] [11] [12]). Admittedly, the nine minutes between article creation and nomination to AfD may not have provided enough time for a proper WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be only local coverage though no? Meatsgains^(talk) 03:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bakazaka (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Bakazaka, and this later source and this source. The latter isn't local. JC7V (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are strong indicia of notability under NCORP. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD, as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable, and has been expanded since the AfD started TheMesquito^buzz 16:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Marshall (chemist)

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

This chemist fails WP:NBIO. No reliable sources covering this person could be found, unlike for the presenter with the same name, Geoff Marshall (presenter). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he is actually a member or fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, then that is a pass on WP:NACADEMIC #3, but I can't find any evidence either way. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He won the distinguished service award in 1993 (per ref 3 in the article), and the criteria indicate that it is open to "members of the RSC analytical division" which shows he is (or was) a member but I'm not 100% certain yet whether it is open to all categories of members, but it seems unlikely that someone who has given 10 years of distinguished voluntary service would be anything less than a member or fellow. It's not surprising though that sources for a research chemist mostly active before the internet are harder to find online than for a contemporary youtuber - not that the notability of the later has any relevance to the notability of the former. I'm leaning keep here, but it's going to take a bit more looking to be certain. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is another reference for him winning the award [13]. The article could do with improving - the "active" years in the info box appear to refer only to his volunteer guide activities, not being an analytical chemist, so are a bit misleading. However, he does seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a division-level service award, I'd be surprised if it were enough to get past WP:PROF. I think it would be important to know whether he was a fellow or simply a member of the RSC. I haven't found any evidence that he was the former. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think the award is enough for WP:PROF and there doesn't seem to be anything else there. So the only possibility for notability would be for WP:AUTHOR for his travel books, but I didn't find the reliably published independent reviews that would be needed for notability that way. I'd be willing to change my mind if enough such reviews turn up (say more than one book reviewed, and at least four reviews total). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of the RSC, or any professional society for that matter, is not enough to show notability as some people seem to think. Being a fellow would be a stronger indication, but there is no evidence that he is that and it would still only be an indication. The society award does not seem to be an especially prestigous one; it was given to fifteen other people in the same year as Marshall according to the article. He comes nowhere near a WP:PROF pass; his work, such as it is, has not had a significant impact. Contrary to claims above, Marshall's publications from the 70s and 80s are easy to find online. He has only a small number of published papers and gscholar shows low citation counts. His later career as an author is an even more dismal notability failure of WP:AUTHOR. Literally thousands of local history books are published every year. There is no sign that any special interest has been taken in Marshall's contribution other than his own claim that London's Docklands is "award-winning". He doesn't say which award and I can find no independent confirmation, let alone that the award is of any significance. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Anne Bennett Memorial Award recognises exceptional voluntary services over a period of years to the RSC Analytical Division - typically at least ten years. It's basically a long service award and doesn't pass the bar set by WP:PROF which requires 'a highly prestigious academic award or honor'. Nothing else here passes notability either. I'm sure he's a good man but he doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.--Project Osprey (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above comments, his achievements and membership of the RSC and the award for long service do not meet the threshold the PROF,and no other sources seem to establish GNG. — Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 4 January 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 quite clear that subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Timms

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

Despite graduating from University of Cambridge, the article may pass WP:BLP but fails the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is an academic who held the Peyton and Barber Professor of Music named chair and therefore passes WP:NACADEMIC#5. Bakazaka (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#5. As previously mentioned (and already present in the article at the time it was nominated) Timms held the Peyton and Barber Professor of Music. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:NACADEMIC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject's former academic position meets criterion 5 of WP:NACADEMIC and being awarded the Derek Allen Prize by a chartered institution of which the subject was also a Fellow and of which he served as Secretary also meets criteria 2 and 3. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. Timms held a named chair in a major UK research university (WP:NACADEMIC#5) and has won a substantial award in his field (the Derek Allen Prize, which seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC#2). Additionally, he has published a range of books which have been the subject of peer-reviewed commentary in scholarly journals (e.g., 1, 2). —Noswall59 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep People who pass WP:NACADEMIC do not need to pass WP:GNG. Nom, please read WP:NACADEMIC: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. ... if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously passes WP:ACADEMIC. Blythwood (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The named chair makes it unnecessary to look harder for other aspects of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Presence In Los Angeles

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

90 percent of the references are to Wikipedia, while I'm sure interesting to the Sikh community I'm not seeing the applicability in a stand alone article notability or need for the presence in one particular city. This was not ready for article space, it was submitted to AFC declined and then passed by the author. I'd suggest a sandbox work if they think they can actually make this with reliable sourcing that shows notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I moved it into draft but this was moved back without addressing the issue with the sourcing of the article. A search did not reveal significant coverage - I can see articles on the vandalism of a Sikh temple and some passing mentions, but little else that would warrant an article such as this. There might be just enough material for Sikhs in California, but frankly I doubt one for Los Angeles alone is ever warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is more like an essay than an article. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I commend Hzh for trying to save it previously. Let's give the editor another chance to reliably source it and perhaps take Hzh's advice to broaden the scope. Ifnord (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renamed as Toledo synagogue attack plot. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Joseph

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

Like a similar (but not exactly related) article up for deletion, this is an article with two obvious BLP violations that should not be ignored. Clear case of BLP1E for “sources cover the person only in the context of a single event”. BLPCRIME also states: “For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured”. Since we do not have a crystal ball we must presume innocence and it is difficult to maintain a neutral bio with that in mind. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID the name should be changed to Attempted attack on Toledo Synagogue or similar --Shrike (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rename to Toledo synagogue plot (which has wide international coverage since this breaking - persisting to today (18 December)).Icewhiz (talk)
Keep and rename as Toledo synagogue attack plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Toledo synagogue attack plot per above; the incident meets WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME. Catrìona (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In today's paper: Terror Threat Near Toledo.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Faivre

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

Actress lacks notability at this time. No significant coverage, I've yet to find a reliable source, or really anything that doesn't mention her briefly. (And just as an aside that critic's comment is not neutral here.) Trillfendi (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both currently cited Thai sources constitute non-trivial coverage of the subject and her career. Also, sources need not be neutral to be reliable. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that part was my opinion that it didn’t provide anything for her 2 sentence career section, it was just their attempt to comment on her beauty. Those sources, as I don’t speak Thai, I had no clue so I didn’t want to speak ignorantly on them. Trillfendi (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that de-wiki, fr-wiki, zh-wiki, Thai wiki and more have articles about her. She has had recurring roles in several TV shows.^[1] She has a major role in a well-received recent movie.^[2] HouseOfChange (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wickline, Dan (January 12, 2018). "Agents Of SHIELD Season 5: the Transformation of Florence Faivre to Sinara". Bleeding Cool. Retrieved December 17, 2018. She was a regular host for two different teen television series and guest hosted many others. As she graduated high school, she was chosen to lead the film The Siam Renaissance, the second largest Thai production ever and she received a best actress nomination at the Bangkok international Film Festival. She then moved to New York where she starred in the films Chokdee and the Elephant King. She then began working in television, guesting on The Following and How To Make It In America before getting cast on The Expanse.
^ "AMERICAN MIRROR Wins Best Cinematography And Best Innovative Film At Pomegranate Film Festival". Broadway World. November 21, 2018. Retrieved December 17, 2018. Balder lays out the dream-like narratives of both the artist and his haunting muses -main parts assigned to Susan Sarandon and Florence Faivre

Keep per HouseOfChange. Marvel’s Agents Of SHIELD appears to be her notable work. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. The references above and in the article are the sort of in-depth coverage that establish notability per WP:GNG. Sandstein 11:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple wikis (includin dewiki which is tough notability wise). My BEFORE shows multiple hits by NEWSORGs. Some of the sources above are INDEPTH. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewiki’s only reliable source gave her all of 7 words. SMH Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; has not been in multiple significant roles. The lack of coverage in English-language sources is, as a practical matter, problematic for us. Uninvited Company 22:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UninvitedCompany: WP:HEY The article now has 5 English-language sources to supplement the more in-depth Thai language coverage. But foreign-language sources are allowed as evidence of notability, even though we prefer English-language for sources of information. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseofChance: Wow, one sentence about her role in Forbes. Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Faivre meets NACTOR for significant roles in two US TV series and a major Thai film. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Most people !voting her think Faivre also meets GNG, although she has more coverage in Thai than in English. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as available sources clearly show the subject meeting WP:BASIC (independent of WP:NACTOR, which she also passes). Additionally, non-English sources are allowed by policy (WP:N and WP:V), and assigning them lower status simply because they were written in a different language impedes the work of the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see me say I didn’t disregard the Thai sources since I didn’t want to miscontrue them. My statements were about the English sources given. Trillfendi (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as available sources clearly show the subject meeting WP:BASIC. Her role in The Expanse is in two of the existing sources and is also notable. Caitlynmaire (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadguru Hambir Baba

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

Non notable subject failing WP:GNG. Qualitist (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable source coverage to show the subject meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Weak Delete I would expect to find more sources, as he is named as Vasant Lad's guru in a couple of books about Ayurveda. It's possible that there are sources which have not been digitised, as he was active in 1950s and 1960s India. However, as the searches I'm able to do aren't showing even the existence of more sources, and as the 2 blogs included as references show only 2 and 10 followers each, that suggests to me that he may not be notable. If he was notable when he was active, then he should have an article - but without evidence of evidence, I would have to say delete, though weakly ..... RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . The article in current shape also has a lot of WP:PEACOCK issues per se. Failed WP:GNG. May be WP:TNT Devopam (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Retail

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

This is a long nomination because the article appears to be a carefully designed WP:REFBOMBing.

Ultimatley, it's another article on a startup FinTech firm by an obviously undisclosed paid contributor (this is their only contribution to WP) that provides no info other than details on each of its funding rounds. It appears to exist as an investor relations marketing piece to get around SEC forward looking statement restrictions for when investors Google the company.

About half of the sources are mentions in market analyst reports by WWD, a business intelligence firm which is not WP:RS and the content of which is WP:ROUTINE. There are also a couple user-generated content such as a Crunchbase directory listing and a Bloomberg directory listing which anyone can submit (having submitted some myself). Then there's one or two tiny trade outlets like pymnts.com which are reporting series funding rounds, which is on the extremely ROUTINE end of things.
That leaves two sources. The first is a CBC report which is good and does contribute to WP:N. The second is a Forbes contributor interview, which is not. Even if it weren't a contributor story it is ultimately just a Q&A interview with the company's CEO and is, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT.

A single CBC story is not enough to prove notability. My extensive BEFORE found copious additional references but only of the kind above (i.e. trade outlets reporting on funding rounds, etc.). Wolfson5 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, I am the person who approved the draft through AfC. If you look at the talk page, I actually made a note of the refbombing, but carefully looked through the references prior to sending to mainspace (also note that deletion should not be used for cleanup). There are Forbes contributor pieces, but the interview is NOT by a contributor, it is by staff. I do not consider interviews for notability but there is a three paragraph introduction that talks in-depth about the company that was satisfactory, especially since it came from a staff writer. Then there is the CBC piece, also noted on the talk page. Just a quick questions though. You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Your reasoning is that this is the creator's only contribution. You also make some strong accusations accusing this company of SEC violations. Can you explain how you know all of this information? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that this is an undisclosed paid editing piece. Can you explain how you know all of this information? Sure. It's basically common sense that articles on companies that are patently not notable and in which the author has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia are generally (not always) undisclosed COI editing. Then, spending 10 seconds running the editor's name through Google finds a match to someone in their marketing department. Wolfson5 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, doxxing is not something we do at AfC and it is not part of determining notability. However, what took you 10 seconds has taken me quite a bit more and I still do not see the username of the creator connected to the company. Your weasel words of "patently" and "obvious" along with your heavy handed accusation against the company strays far from WP:AGF. If the nomination is for notability, say so, instead of creating synth around it being about paid editing. Finally, WWD is not a "business intelligence firm." WWD is a Fairchild Media publication with editorial oversight. As such, that now makes at least in-depth references. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand what just happened. So, you asked the question, got the answer, didn't like the answer and then confess an inability to reproduce the "doxxing" of the author but doesn't stop you from making the accusation anyway. Then you completely ignore the original question and the answer you sought, instead taking the opportunity to criticize the language used in the AfD and make accusations of making OOT heavy handed accusations - finishing up with a "correction" that WWD is not a business intelligence firm (despite it being described as such on the WWD website with a tag line of "Access the most trusted news and analysis of the fashion and beauty worlds", not to mention the description in the Women's Wear Daily article. Not to forget your last point that somehow (despite WP:ORGIND specifically stating there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility, you've doubled down on it as a reference. You can probably tell I disagree with your comment in its entirety. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was towards the nominator who answered the question, but I checked myself and found the answer to be false. The answer was also condescending as if I shouldn't have even asked. Don't put words in my mouth or assume you know what I am thinking. I am trying to get the answer to a simple question; you are attacking editors because someone has a contrary opinion to yours (something that has been a pattern at AfD). I am tired of the incivility and lack of WP:AGF in Wikipedia and your response above falls within that. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to the content. WWD is not a business intelligence firm as stated by the nominator. It is a fashion journal as has editorial oversight so it is a reliable source. Just because it says it offers "information and intelligence" on its Wikipedia page doesn't mean it is a "business intelligence firm."--CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Forbes article is labeled as both contributor and staff which I think means it's advertorial. But giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's straight, I'm not seeing that two pieces of RS coverage (one of which is just a Q&A) establish notability. BIG BURLEY 19:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes has three kinds of posts: staff written, brand voice, and contributors. Contributors are actually paid (they used to be volunteers) but the overall editorial control is unclear so I treat them as if there is none. Brand voice is their advertorial pieces which are sponsored and marked as such. The rest is from staff. This looks like it was both staff and contributors which tells me that the story was likely picked up and published after editorial review or it would have simply gone out as a contributor piece. Since it's not marked as paid, I see no reason to regard it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but since it relies entirely on an interview with the founder of the company and data provided by the company (to the point the reproduce the questions and answers), it fails WP:ORGIND anyway and this type of reference is rejected for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications rely heavily on information from companies. Journalist don't just wake up in the morning and go knocking on doors looking for a story. The days of Clark Kent and the Daily Planet are over. Journalists rely heavily on PR firms reaching out to them pitching stories. It is then up to them to either engage in Churnalism (basically reprinting the story the company sends them), or providing intellectual information they fact-checked along the way. This is not simply a reprint of an interview. The first few paragraphs meet that threshold since there is editorial oversight we must assume they fact-checked the information unless we have evidence to the contrary. How else is Forbes going to get this information? From another publication? Where is that publication going to get the information? Fact is, it all originates from the company. What it comes down to is the fact-checking. Forbes does so with staff writers. If this were a contributor piece, I would agree with you 100%.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I think there is notability here. I think the CBC, Forbes and WSJ sources in this article do count to establish notability. (I'm not sure why other contributors to this AfD haven't mentioned the WSJ article?) The Forbes piece has 3 paras written by a Forbes staff member, and an interview with the company founder, which includes some hard questions (like Q: "What kind of results has Toys “R” Us gotten using Tulip? (Answer) Q: "But not enough to keep them out of bankruptcy. What happened?") This Wikipedia article about Tulip Retail does not say much about what the company does - as another editor has said, this article focuses more on funding rounds than what the company provides, but that is a question of article quality rather than notability, and there is more information in the sources.

As well as those 3 sources, I find other, earlier sources which indicate that the company founder Ali Asaria is notable himself, eg 'Former Well.Ca Founder Ali Asaria Raises $2.4 Million for New Waterloo Startup' (2013, Betakit) [14] (quote: "Ali Asaria left Well.ca in the winter to relative surprise, but really you kind of knew he was just going to start some other awesome site."); 'BrickBreaker inventor hopes there's riches in the Well.ca' (CBC, 2011) [15] (quote: "By the time he left [Research in Motion] in 2006, Asaria was credited with a simple little addictive app that's now found on more than 50 million devices — BrickBreaker"); and 'RIM's legacy will be decided by the businesses it spawns' (Financial Post, 2013) [16] (quote: "Among the so-called RIM Rats is Ali Asaria — a classic type-A, serial entrepreneur. At the age of 31, he already has two successful startups under his belt"). Those articles precede the founding of Tulip Retail, and suggest that Asaria has notability dating back to at least 2011, and warrants his own article. (Well.ca, one of the companies which Asaria founded, does have its own Wikipedia article.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are stricter standards for references that can be used to establish notability. None of the ones you've mentioned above meet those standards since none are considered "intellectually independent and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, none of the references meet the WP:NCORP/WP:GNG guidelines for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely refbombing with a slew of routine or self-promotional coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after being listed for three weeks. Last relist didn't result in any further input. Michig (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie van der Graaf

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

May meet NModel due to Playboy and SI Swimsuit, but I don’t think she meets GNG at this time. Lacks significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely meets WP:NMODEL criteria #1, as SI and Playboy are quite notable. WP:GNG is tougher but she's been in several papers, like when she turned down Jon Snow at a party. [17] Ifnord (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Even trying to put it in a ref tag is blocked. But then again many non-notable models have also been in Playboy or SI Swimsuit. I think GNG always takes precedence above all professions. That’s why I think it should be deleted until significant coverage happens. Trillfendi (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: the Daily Mail, which is why I did not add it to the article. But, when I went looking for sources, I found a ton of hits, mainly in Dutch. I had a hard time trying to see if any of them were reliable, Dutch not being a language I speak, but I suspect there's some. Ifnord (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some basic understanding of Dutch, but I’m betting those sources probably don’t cut it because I tried looking at Dutch wiki’s article and it gave no sources at all.Trillfendi (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoCoinsNews

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

More non-notable crypto-spam! No coverage, barely any hits beyond their own website. Fails WP:GNG Praxidicae (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I placed the removed PROD. No evidence this site is notable or has non-negligible third-party coverage. Mostly self-references. A single somewhat-RS (though specialist) about a single incident. Just some crypto blog - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable; if you remove hits to their own website from the mix, the resulting GNews is all press releases and here and there the trivial "According to..." attributions; nothing I've found rises above a mere mention. Pegnawl (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage whatsoever. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Stuart Airlie, Maud Anne Bracke and Rosemary Elliot, 'Editorial', Gender & History, 28 (2016), 275-82 (p. 281, fn. 19) doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12205.

[2] Walter Pohl, 'Introduction: Meanings of Community in Medieval Eurasia', in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 1-23 (pp. 1-2); https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w76w6c.5.

[3] Catherine Holmes and Naomi Standen, 'Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages', Past & Present, 238, Issue suppl. 13 (1 November 2018), 1–44, doi:10.1093/pastj/gty030.

[4] Alfons Labisch, 'Molecular Historiography–neue Gegenstände und neue Methoden einer neuen Geschichtsschreibung?', NTM: Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften, Technik Und Medizin, 26(3), 351–366; doi:10.1007/s00048-018-0198-7.

[BC-5] Wickline, Dan (January 12, 2018). "Agents Of SHIELD Season 5: the Transformation of Florence Faivre to Sinara". Bleeding Cool. Retrieved December 17, 2018. She was a regular host for two different teen television series and guest hosted many others. As she graduated high school, she was chosen to lead the film The Siam Renaissance, the second largest Thai production ever and she received a best actress nomination at the Bangkok international Film Festival. She then moved to New York where she starred in the films Chokdee and the Elephant King. She then began working in television, guesting on The Following and How To Make It In America before getting cast on The Expanse.

[AM-6] "AMERICAN MIRROR Wins Best Cinematography And Best Innovative Film At Pomegranate Film Festival". Broadway World. November 21, 2018. Retrieved December 17, 2018. Balder lays out the dream-like narratives of both the artist and his haunting muses -main parts assigned to Susan Sarandon and Florence Faivre

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Jewell}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umedia VFX}}