Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 December	13 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Flight 1416[edit]

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

Non-notable air crash per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Though the NTSB did come out and do a report, the accident did not receive any substantial media coverage after the day of the accident, and no major changes to aviation safety were made as a result of the accident. SportingFlyer talk 22:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought NTSB report would give it significance (along with passing GNG), but WP:NOTNEWS is a strong argument here. No implications shown to anything in the future is something I should have connected the guideline with, but here we are. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the subject of the AfD has received significant coverage it is an event, and doesn't meet criteria set forth in WP:AIRCRASH for retention as a stand alone article nor does the event has a last effect. Therefore, while the incident can be included in a list of events regarding the type of aircraft (perhaps), as a single event it falls under WP:NOTNEWS.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable air crash per WP:NOTNEWS. SalmanZ (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Burst of coverage in 2014. Some minor coverage of a lawsuit in 2018,[1] which for me is not sufficient for WP:SUSTAINED] coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 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 no consensus. From the comments it would appear that the article, in particular its referencing, needs serious work. Hopefully the editors participating in this huge debate with its walls of text have not spent all their energy yet and will collaborate to improve the article to an acceptable level. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Worsley[edit]

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

Recreation of an article that was deleted about a month ago. The creator of this version tried much harder on the sourcing issue, so it isn't immediately speediable as a G4 -- but what they failed to do is provide new sources that actually cut ice. Almost right across the board, this is referenced to primary sources that do absolutely nothing whatsoever toward building notability and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people -- the only reference that's actually about him to any non-trivial or notability-assisting degree is from a suburban weekly pennysaver, and exists only in the context of him renovating his studio rather than the context of anything relevant to whether he clears an inclusion criterion or not. This still is not how you reference a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- this is what we call reference bombing (i.e. trying to use the number of footnotes to disguise the quality of them), and it's not an acceptable tactic. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree entirely with the nomination, this is another poor quality draft accepted by User:Legacypac, the sources do NOT establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theroadislong I've never encountered you before but your criticism of me doing exactly what I am supposed to be doing as an AfC reviewer is off base. At AfC we are supposed to accept anything that is likely to survive an AfD, a standard this page clearly meets. Take your personal attack against me and shove it. Pages I accept at AfC (and there are many as some months I am the top reviewer) have a very high survival rate. If you know so much let's see how many AfC submissions you can accept and how well they do. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearcat your statement that the new version failed to provide new sources is not correct. There are three new sources that are independent, in-depth on Worsley, and reliable WP:BLP from the version you proposed for deletion in September: profile on Worsley from Professional Sound Magazine, Working Class Audio profile, and the Tri-City news profile. The main point here is that Worsley is notable enough for three reliable sources to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about him. You say above there are only glancing namechecks, which is not accurate. The previous version's fluff, non-cited, and circular links have all been removed in this version, as pointed out from the last article for deletion discussion. The production and engineering mentions of Worsley alongside bands worked with are typical for a producer's role and are there only to support mentions of the musician/groups he's collaborated with - not intended as sources for notability. If you are concerned with WP:REFBOMB, perhaps there could be fewer references to bands worked with? Additionally, Worsley won the 2018 Producer of the Year award at the Western Canadian Music Awards this past week (not regional, represents half of the country), which under WP:ANYBIO constitutes as notable. There is now multiple nominations and multiple award wins. This award and references did not exist in the last version proposed for deletion in September 2018.Wiseseven (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Audio is a podcast, not a reliable source — podcasts do absolutely nothing whatsoever to help establish the notability of anything or anybody. Professional Sound is an industry trade magazine that gave him an advertorial spread, not a general interest publication that covered him journalistically. And winning a Western Canadian Music Award is not a notability freebie under NMUSIC #8 if a WordPress blog like Nation Talk is actually the best you can do for sourcing the fact. The WCMAs aren't nothing, but they aren't a magic bullet that forces us to keep a poorly sourced article just because it has the words "Western Canadian Music Awards" in it. The qualifying test for a Wikipedia article is not what the article says, it's how well the thing it says can or can't be referenced — there's no notability claim that any person can ever make that entitles him to inclusion just because the claim is stated, if you have to rest on bad sources to support it because the correct kind of notability-making sourcing is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat thanks for feedback on that. Reference for Producer of the Year has been changed to Exclaim.ca (primary Canadian music publication). Why do you assume Professional Sound magazine is an advertorial? There is no indication of that on the article or publication, therefore seems like an arbitrary statement (article written by editor of the magazine). Under WP:ANYBIO (see 2.1) winning an award and/or being nominated multiple times is likely to be notable. And can you please provide support for why a Podcast is not allowed as a reliable source?Wiseseven (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts are not reliable sources because they're self-published by their own creators, not distributed by conventional media outlets with editorial standards, and because they typically feature the subject talking about himself in a Q&A interview format rather than being spoken about in the third person. But people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of third party coverage written in the third person, not by being the speaking or writing about themselves or other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notablity does mot rest on which sources are selected but on meeting WP:NMUSIC which this person now meets for winning a recognized music award Producer of the Year recently. That is a change from his marginal notability before the award win that lead to previous AfC rejections and the previous rejection. Producers tend to get a lot less coverage than artists but this producer is evidently more notable and more recognized than most because he has the award to prove it now. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And meeting NMUSIC depends on having the correct kind of sources to support the article. Please note that NMUSIC specifically states that the inclusion test is not what the article says, but how well it references what it says. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion first time around was entirely warranted, as it rested on flimsy and minimal-mention references. Better this time. I am not in the music profession, but do have family members and friends who are. A point I heard from them - people behind the mic, i.e., the musicians, are much more likely to be written about in general press compared to people behind the glass, i.e., producers. The latter get written up in industry publications. As has Worsley. Can still be notable. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is still resting on flimsy and minimal-mention references, so I'm not clear on how you think it's "better this time" other than there being more of the flimsy and minimal-mention references — but what had to improve to make the article recreatable is not the number of footnotes, but the depth of referencing about him as a subject. Yes, it's true that the people behind the mic are more likely to get written about than the people behind the glass — that fact is precisely why we have more articles about the people behind the mic than we do about the people behind the glass. But it is not so mission-critical for the people behind the glass to also have Wikipedia articles that we would waive the reliable sourcing requirement just because their importance somehow trumps their lack of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with David, producers and Engineers are rarely covered by mainstream publications. I'm a software engineer and I know that notable software engineers and computer scientists are NEVER referenced in mainstream publications. They are always referenced in trusted and respected engineering articles online. You'll mostly find noteworthy producer / sound engineer professionals covered under trade publications as well. Regardless of how great they are they won't be referenced in a Vancouver Sun or New York Times. Behind the scene professions just don't have enough mainstream interest in general. --Richardnasr (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC):— Richardnasr contribs has made no other edits outside this topic. --[reply]

If an occupation "doesn't have enough mainstream interest in general", then that in and of itself is a reason why a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist. It is not so mission-critical for any person to have a Wikipedia article that we would waive our reliable sourcing requirements just because the "need" to have an article about them somehow overrode the inability to reference it to the correct kind of sources. It's not our job to help under-covered people create their public profile by waiving our sourcing requirements — nobody is so important for us to maintain an article about that we would exempt them from having to have the correct kind of sourcing to qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of what the article says they did. So the question is not "how can we create an alternative path to notability for people who don't have the kind of media coverage that most other people would need?", but "why is it necessary for a person who doesn't have the kind of media coverage that most other people would need to be in Wikipedia at all?" Having a Wikipedia article about any given person is neither an entitlement nor a requirement — nobody is so overridingly important for us to have an article about that we would deem their importance to overrule their lack of reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. The Western Canadian Music Awards are not the Grammys by a long shot. Plus Wikipedia's goals do not include righting any perceived wrongs such as recognizing the unsung behind-the-scenes contributors. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition of WP:NMUSIC, anyone who is not a performing musician or composer fails. Wrong measuring stick. And WCMAs are Grammys if you live in western Canada. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - By definition of NMUSIC, there are criteria there for producers — thing being that they still depend on solid reliable sourcing about the producer, not just on what the article says. And also by definition, any occupation for which we don't have defined inclusion criteria automatically lives or dies on the subject's passage or failure of WP:GNG, which is not what you want here since on the evidence of these sources he fails GNG hard — so "NMUSIC is the wrong measuring stick for record producers" is not the hill you want to plant your flag on here. And WCMAs may be Grammys if you live in western Canada, but they ain't Grammys when it comes to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for people in the music industry: they can be mentioned as supplementary information in an article about a person who's already cleared NMUSIC in other ways, but they are not a notability-clinching award for the purposes of "notable because of the award" status. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The refs mostly name drops, but it very wide number of folk have mentioned him, in relation to production work. It is much better sourced that it was in the previous version. As a software engineer, I agree entirely with the rationale of Richardnasr. This article is classic boundary case, that falls out the set covered by the standard notability guidelines. They are back office guys rarely spoken about in mainstream media, unless they are also musicians like e.g. Jeff Lynne, providing them additional weight, that gets them noticed. Showing my age here, but it is a solid keep. scope_creep (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name drops don't confer notability, no matter how "wide" a "number" of folk do the namedropping, and the article says nothing about him that's so "inherently" notable that the importance of having an article about him would trump the inability to get him over GNG on much better referencing. The way Wikipedia notability works is not that we deem some people so important that the need to have an article comes first and the quality of sourcing needed to get him in the door is up for negotiation — the quality of sourcing is the non-negotiable part, and the need for us to have an article at all is the thing that's up for debate. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering why this is relisted for further discussion when first round was 5/3 to keep and Bearcat seems to be the only person that has a real problem with this article - replying to all votes to keep but providing no suggestions for improvement.Wiseseven (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other suggestion for improvement that I or anybody else can offer except the one I've already offered repeatedly: find the correct kind of sources to get him over WP:GNG. There is no alternate path to notability that ever bypasses a person having to have better references than this has, and there is no notability claim that any person can ever make that we deem so "inherently" notable that he gets exempted from having to have better references than this has: the path to notability passes through reliable source coverage about him, which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning his existence in coverage about something else", and there's no "get out of reliable source coverage about him" card hiding in the Chance deck. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseseven - AfDs are not decided by vote. An admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision. Relisting allows the discussion period to be extended. Bearcat is not under any obligation to try to fix the article. Above all, AfDs are supposed to be civil. Dissing someone who has 78,000 more edits than you do is not wise. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfamiliar with the process. Genuine question. Not intended as a diss. Apologies Bearcat if taken that way.Wiseseven (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per everyone above. He won multiple awards, multitude of sources show that he passes WP:GNG JC7V-talk 21:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources here which glancingly mention his name in the process of failing to be about him; there are sources which don't even do that, but just verify stray facts about other people mentioned in the article while not even mentioning his name at all in the process; there are primary sources that do exactly nothing at all in terms of establishing notability — but one thing that isn't being shown here is "a multitude of sources that show that he passes GNG". GNG is not passed by simply counting up the number of footnotes present — it tests for the depth of how much any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the sources are coming from, the reliability and independence of each source and the context of what he's getting that coverage for, and nearly all the sources shown here fail one or more of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this, this, and this, isn't enough?? JC7V-talk 16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above sources, the ones in the article and the awards I say WP:NEXIST and WP:MUSTBESOURCES (more sources). JC7V-talk 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Podcasts never, ever count as reliable or notability-supporting sources under any circumstances whatsoever, The Stranger just namechecks Ryan Worsley's existence in an article about somebody else, and the Tri-City News is a local pennysaver covering him only in the context of renovating his studio. All three of those sources have already been addressed above as to why they're not cutting it. The only kinds of sourcing that can ever be used to establish a musician as notable are (a) coverage about him in major market daily newspapers on the order of the Vancouver Sun or the Calgary Herald or the Winnipeg Free Press or The Globe and Mail, (b) coverage about him in major music media on the order of Exclaim! or Rolling Stone, and/or (c) coverage about him from the national news divisions of Canada's news television or radio networks. Not blogs, not podcasts, not community pennysavers, not glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other people: coverage which has him as the core subject (and not just a side mention in coverage whose core subject is something or someone else), in a very specific and narrow tier of high quality sources. Nothing else does the job. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several "keep" arguments don't really address the issue of poor referencing, or even acknowledge that it's bad. Discussion based only upon whether there are or are not sufficient reliable, in-depth sources to support a full article would be helpful; the fact that it's hard to find sources on something doesn't excuse the requirement for them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 11#Ryan Worsley.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Bearcat that the awards are not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, the majority of the sources in the article don't cover him, and the ones that do aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My closure, superseded by the relisting above, was: "The "delete" arguments are just quite a bit more convincing here. The fact that most of the "keep" opinions are in the vein of "I know that he didn't get a lot of coverage, but..." is a sure sign that the type and quality of sourcing required by WP:GNG just isn't met, and good sources are the one sine qua non of a Wikipedia article." Sandstein 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close (defaulting to keep via no consensus): First of all, 2 months of discussion with clearly no consensus reached among substantially the same small group of editors apparently isn't enough to determine a lack of consensus... WP:IAR is core policy, and cannot be overridden by the relatively few editors who participate at DRV, let alone the incredibly few who have taken part in crafting the instructions there. (In fact, in the specific case of IAR this type of thing is the entire reason it exists in the first place!) Given the previous closes, it would not be surprising to see the "keep" side slightly more worn out from the exact same arguments being repeated over and over, thus inappropriately tilting the balance of the discussion. In short, this whole thing is far too close for comfort to WP:GAMING/WP:FORUMSHOP, even if entirely unintentional – not casting aspersions on any specific user(s) here, only on the entire process, which really should be thrown out.

Second, I do not think it is even theoretically possible to reach any sort of consensus here. This is because the DRV already had a very in-depth discussion, that was so controversial that it sparked a massive discussion of its own at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG. Take a look at that – does that seem like a discussion that has so much as the slightest chance of reaching a consensus? And if not, how in the world can one possibly be reached at a mere AfD, with but a tiny fraction of its editor participation?

Third, as a result of this very ill-advised relisting I am basically forced to copy-and-paste my own responses on the two major issues here, thus ripping them out of context:

I have to say that I find User:Bearcat's comments at the AfD very troubling. Now I freely admit that I do not have much experience with WP:NMUSIC specifically, but there were multiple assertions made that are simply not true per policy, e.g. that podcasts cannot be reliable sources, or that only so-called "major" sources qualify. And then there is this rather chilling sentence: If an occupation "doesn't have enough mainstream interest in general", then that in and of itself is a reason why a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist. Let's not mince words here: without exaggeration, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles would need to be deleted to satisfy such a high standard. WP:NOTPAPER is just as much policy as WP:N (in fact arguably more so, as the latter is a guideline).

Interviews do contribute to notability. Now, it is obviously a bad idea to base an article only on interviews, just as we wouldn't want an article to rely on any other single type of source. But as I explained at the mentioned DRV: once a reliable source chooses to conduct and publish an interview, even one with the subject of said interview, that source is asserting the standard of reliability that is generally associated with it. In other words, it is entirely different from "just a conversation someone might have had", which is what we often think of when we think about interviews.
Contrary to some assertions on this, an interview is not made by the interviewee. They are merely a participant. They do not normally have any editorial control or even influence over it – and in those cases where they somehow do, then the interview is certainly affiliated and not independent.

And one other thing: the Western Canadian Music Awards are most certainly notable, given that they have a Wikipedia article. If we can't even use our own notability standards for these purposes, we probably cannot use any at all.

Given all of this, I would be forced to !vote speedy keep in the absence of procedural shenanigans, because there is simply no reasonable argument for deletion here at this time. Modernponderer (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC does not extend "notability because awards" to just any award that exists, or even to just any award that has a Wikipedia article about it — it very explicitly limits "notability because awards" to top-level national awards on the level of the Junos, Grammies, Brits, Mercury or Polaris, a tier which the WCMAs are not in. And it also very explicitly states that having a technical pass of any criterion in NMUSIC is not an instant free notability pass that exempts the article from actually having to cite enough reliable source coverage to get the subject over WP:GNG — the criteria clarify what counts as a notability claim, but simply asserting a notability claim is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept: the degree to which the notability claim actually translates into an article getting kept still hinges on the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support it. And even under the most basic WP:ANYBIO provisions for the notability of award winners, we still don't just extend an automatic inclusion freebie for just any winner of any award that exists — even there, we still care only about awards that can be shown to receive a GNG-worthy volume of journalistic coverage about their announcements of their winners, and not about purely local or regional awards that can be sourced only to their own press releases, or to purely local coverage that doesn't nationalize.

And while you're certainly free to believe that interviews should assist in supporting notability, we have an established consensus that they do not. "They are merely a participant"? There's no "merely" about it: the fact that they are a participant is exactly the problem. The interview represents them talking about themselves, and is thus subject to the same problems as any other self-published source: they can say things that are false or inaccurate, such as calling their single a hit even though it wasn't, or claiming an award nomination they don't really have. As I've always said, we are allowed to use interviews to source stray facts after notability has already been covered off by enough stronger sources — for instance, if it's in an interview that an already-notable musician or writer or politician comes out as LGBT, then we're not prevented from using the interview as our source for describing and categorizing them as LGBT. But what interviews don't do is count toward the initial matter of determining whether they've cleared GNG or not: you can't stake a person's basic notability on the existence of Q&A interviews. Only sources written in the third person are relevant to determining whether they clear GNG or not — once GNG has been satisfied, then you can use interviews to source additional content, but the interviews don't count for anything in the initial process of getting them over GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat, we DO NOT have an "established consensus" about interviews and notability! Someone who thought just like you at the very DRV in question tried to change that at WP:N, and it was almost instantly reverted, sparking the massive discussion that I just linked to at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG that now has an enormous amount of opposition. So I'm sorry, but repeating that over and over again does not make it any more true, or a valid argument for deletion.

As for the awards: I have just gone over WP:NMUSIC very carefully, and the exact statement about awards in the case of musicians is: Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Now, while it is completely true that the examples given are of national awards, the criterion itself does not explicitly state this, when it would be very easy to do so by simply replacing "major" with "national" (or even "top-level national", as you put it). As a result, it is open to interpretation, and the interpretation of multiple participants at this AfD besides myself that the WCMA qualify as "major" is completely valid. (Note that some of the other criteria there do explicitly specify that they only apply on a national level, so this is clearly not a matter of mere semantics, and would require consensus to change.)

You are quite correct in that merely satisfying any of the criteria at NMUSIC is not in itself sufficient. Per WP:SUBNOT: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on [...] any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. But here's the thing: that is also open to interpretation, and exactly what AfD is for! Multiple participants here have expressed the view that the sources provided qualify as independent, reliable ones "that provide in-depth information about the subject". You cannot just discount opinions that are completely in line with policy simply because you disagree with them.

Additionally, the subject-specific notability guidelines are a supplement to, not a replacement for, WP:GNG. From WP:N: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline[.] And once again, there is significant support at this AfD for the article simply passing GNG based on the sources provided, and that support must be taken into full consideration when closing the AfD, as it is completely in line with policy. Modernponderer (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "enormous amount of opposition" is complete bluster. Everyone there is saying "it depends," and many of the "it depends" are valid since they discuss the fact an interview may show notability for a company, but not a person. The interviews here don't count and this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. In terms of the SNG, a look at the WCMA previous winners awards show many of the artists themselves do not have Wikipedia articles, and the ones that do have won other major awards such as Juno Awards. Obviously they may be notable but don't have articles yet per WP:OSE, but that fact does lend itself to show it's a regional award which wouldn't satisfy the musical awards SNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SportingFlyer, you do not speak for other editors, and do not have the right to interpret their opinions in the general case for a specific one – especially as they have not chosen to comment here, despite the DRV being linked right at the start of that discussion. Furthermore, drawing a conclusion from specific aspects of the arguments in such a debate (such as the claim that "many" of the comments there distinguish between notability for people and that for companies) is something only the discussion closer(s) can actually do in an unbiased manner.

The discussion does demonstrate that Bearcat's assertion about interviews and notability is false, as there is nothing even remotely resembling a consensus there. It does not in any way demonstrate that the editors in question would agree (or disagree) with your personal opinion that the "interviews here don't count". Now on the other hand, many of the users who actually have commented at this AfD do disagree with you, and as I have already pointed out their completely valid opinions cannot be disregarded simply because you do not agree with them.

Also, for both this and the awards issue you're using inferences as evidence, while I have largely been using direct quotations from existing policy and other factual statements to prove my side of the argument. One would hope the discussion closer takes this into account when weighing the arguments. Modernponderer (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear the interviews consensus is "it depends." You're trying to create an argument that interviews can be used to show notability for this article when traditionally they would not have counted towards notability, since the interviewee is a primary source for his own life, which hasn't really been rebutted. Furthermore, none of the Keep votes above discuss WP:GNG but rather the SNG, and closely examining the award shows the award's not notable enough to make someone instantly notable for winning one, and assuming it does would be a slippery slope argument - there was recently an article at AfD for a musician who won a regional music award in the northern part of an African country, would that pass WP:NMUSIC? SportingFlyer talk 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It depends" is not a consensus – it is a lack of consensus. You cannot write "it depends" into meaningful policy; the statement is basically useless in itself. As I already pointed out, the very purpose of AfD is to resolve such issues for specific articles. Furthermore, I have already explained why I consider that interviews that satisfy all of the reliable source criteria do in fact count for notability purposes.

There are actually quite a few points here from the "keep" side that are clearly based on the GNG and not the SNG, but I don't see how that is relevant in any case. As for your slippery slope argument, much like I said about interviews: it is a bad idea to base an entire article on any single type of source. But that is not the case here – even just now we've been discussing multiple aspects that may or may not contribute to notability for the subject of this article. Modernponderer (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.", Worsley has won, and been nominated for, a number of Western Canadian Music Awards so if this award is deemed "well-known and significant" then Worsley meets this criteria and so is likely (my emphasis) to be notable, of couse the Additional criteria also states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ... why we love afds:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 14 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 Move to draft. While there is obviously no consensus to delete this article, even the "keep" !votes signal severe problems. I am therefore moving it to Draft:Jazz in Africa so that interested editors can flesh it out a bit more before moving it back to main article space. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in Africa[edit]

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

not enough sources, questionable notability, topic too broad Vmavanti (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Delete - ~~this essentially falls under WP:YELLOW~~ Unnecessary list. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YELLOW says that Wikipedia is not "Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." As the page in question contains nothing like this, this complaint is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad rationale, sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of jazz in Africa in a variety of countries including Senegal, South Africa, Ghana and more. The current page is a weak start but it is our policy to welcome such constant and improve it per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Preserve says in its first line "Preserve appropriate content". This article has no appropriate content because all of it is unsourced. There isn't enough content to judge what's true. So I suspect people are not judging the article. They are judging the subject. WP isn't supposed to work that way. I know about jazz. Jazz in Africa is so different that it isn't really jazz. Nevertheless, it is of course a large continent with many countries, making the the subject far too broad to cover in a WP article. "Jazz in..." isn't the kind of article Wikiproject Jazz concentrates on. But there are articles about festivals, venues, and musicians from all over the world. Of the 27,000 jazz articles, nearly 5000 need serious work, most of it done by a few of us. I invite those with strong feelings to fix those articles about African musicians (and so on) if that is an interest is yours. I'm sure readers would much rather see a finished house rather than a condemned building. I'm not a big fan of the good Samaritan argument that says oh, maybe some kind soul will come along and fix it. What I have seen over and over is: they don't. At least not in jazz articles. I've worked on articles that have hardly been touched in ten years. Some has to take the initiative and actually do the work or it won't get done. Readers see half-assed articles and they think less of Wikipedia because of it. I want to improve Wikipedia. I don't want to kick the can down the road. Common sense ought to play some role here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmavanti (talk • contribs)

Another point from WP:Preserve. "should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." How do we know the existing material meets the last criteria? If it's unsourced, it could be original research. In that case, there would be no point in keeping it.
Vmavanti (talk)

Keep as an obviously notable topic per WP:PRESERVE. This is not bad enough to need WP:TNT. Catrìona (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This does seem like a topic with potential, which could span, for example, Louis Armstrong's concerts in Nigeria and Ghana [2] during the independence era, the performances by Archie Shepp, Dave Burrell and others at the 1969 Pan-African Festival sponsored through the Organisation of African Unity [3], and the activities of Guy Warren and Randy Weston as well as figures from South African jazz. The Preface to Robin Kelley's "Africa Speaks, America Answers: Modern Jazz in Revolutionary Times" shows a potential breadth of sources. The problem is that the present article falls very short, little more than a poor relation of the more substantial South African jazz article, and may be a case for WP:TNT. AllyD (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read this topic as referring to American jazz musicians playing in Africa? Or as a form of music created by Africans in Africa?
Vmavanti (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

both, as US jazz musos will have influenced the African jazz scene and vice versa. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your name AllyD?
Vmavanti (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Vmavanti (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

or is it Ali G? Booyakasha! :))Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Disambig Is there a justification for having an article on jazz from/in a continent of 1.2 billion people and more than 50 countries? There's no Jazz in Europe, Jazz in Asia, or Jazz in South America, even though these have been written about extensively. Instead, we have, for example, Jazz in Germany, Japanese jazz, Brazilian jazz. So why pick a continent instead of individual countries? I detect that old Africa is a homogenous country stereotype, which this article is helping to perpetuate. The solution is to create articles on jazz in individual countries. If we can manage Iranian jazz, then we can do some African countries too. And then we could use Jazz in Africa as a disambiguation page. (And yes, I will volunteer to create some of the needed articles, if we can get away from this 'they're all the same/other-worldly, so let's lump them together' thinking.) EddieHugh (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sandbox - I least I hope that can be an option. The subject is intriguing, and I couldn't wait to read it just from the title. But the article is too skimpy for publication. I would hope the article's author and like-minded writers can collaborate on a wider article that is better sourced and more comprehensive. I would be happy to help in any way that I can. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:45, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bouqs Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of this company: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Deli nk (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not provided by brief coverage of a reality TV appearance. The best source that I am seeing is a 2016 MarketingLand item about the company's campaign management. There is also a brief book mention of their use of fair-trade sourcing. These indicate a company going about its business but are insufficient for WP:NCORP AllyD (talk) 12:39, 13 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) 13:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judas cradle[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable independent sources to substantiate this article. It's discussed in a lot of unreliable sources, including those currently cited and from one of which most of the current article is copied verbatim. Earlier versions are WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete It has an entry in the Dictionary of Torture, and a fairly long treatment in A History of Torture. I will see if I can find my hardcopy of The Instruments of Torture to see if it is mentioned there. Also, it may appear in some references under another name, as it seems to have had several. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Torture - Abbot Press. "we help writers self publish books and also provide writers with self-publishing educational opportunities to improve their writing craft". Not WP:RS.

A History of Torture - Absolute Crime, a publisher of sensational pulp literature, the author, William Webb, writes fiction and has no evidence of provable expertise int he field; the book has no ISBN and cites no references. Not a WP:RS

This is exactly what I found as I tracked down every reference. It seems quite possible that this "torture device" is another 19th Century fake. A lot of the "sources" have content suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia article as it existed shortly before they were published. It is, in short, really quite difficult to find a valid academic source establishing that this is a thing - and the obsessive references to the anus and such are a dead giveaway. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote per above, since I haven't been able to validate its existence in other sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax without sufficient RS coverage. Catrìona (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is to notoriously unreliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @JzG: I did a Google book search and found:
- Pellens, Karl and Göran Behre. Historical consciousness and history teaching in a globalizing society. Lang, 2001. ISBN 0820453730, 9780820453736. p. 147. "[...]methods of torture, such as[...]the Judas chair, etc."
The book is from 2001 (Wikipedia just started). It talks about a "judas chair" as an instrument of torture (that was the title I had picked for the article when I started it back then). I don't yet have definitive RSes for keeping the article per se, but this suggests that the concept of a torture device being named a "Judas chair" isn't a hoax (I am not sure, though, about the contents of this article).
WhisperToMe (talk) 11:27, 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 keep. In the hope that the sources found will be added to the article... Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Thunder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Originally had more content, but it was removed by an IP due to it being original research with no sources: [4]. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on John Brunner. As it stands, the article is just a one-sentence article saying that Children of the Thunder is a 1988 science fiction novel by John Brunner, and this could be merged with the article on the book's author with little or no difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. ISFDB alone shows multiple professionally published reviews. A cursory GScholar check shows coverage/evaluation in multiple professional articles. Obviously WP:BEFORE hasn't been properly complied with, and the subject is plainly notable, regardless of the current state of the article, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator needs to remember Article content does not determine notability, and its not "just a one-sentence article" it also has a nice infobox:)), anyway, keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reviews in Locus (listed here), Aboriginal Science Fiction (listed here), Interzone (listed here), Quantum Magazine (listed here), Science Fiction Magazine (listed here), Paperback Inferno (listed here), Mindsparks (listed here), (thankyou Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, and Internet Speculative Fiction Database:)), and The Washington Post (review here). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable subject per sources above. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:05, 15 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. Not vandalism, but pure spam. Could have been speedied as G11. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bascol[edit]

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

Pure vandalism! No sources to indicate this company meets the notability requirements Please check talk page Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not pure vandalism. But still, no sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: It is a pure vandalism and maybe promotional plus Conflict of interest i believe! I think the page creator is the owner of "Bascol"... Please have a look at page history Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you and I have different definitions of vandalism: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism", and I assume good faith on the part of this editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user created page without including a single source.. Does it still make the sense of good faith edits? Well, I call this pure vandalism and promotional page. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please *sigh* people (not regular editors) create pages all the time lacking any sources. It just happens. This is the first version after a series of edits by the creator, and this was the creators second or third article created. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional article, absolutely not written from a neutral point of view, no independent sources. There really isn't anything to save here. It's not serving our readers and would need to be rewritten from scratch. --Slashme (talk) 14:26, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Wind Projects[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP.

Coverage is located in an extremely niche-area of energy-resource-websites.

As things stand, Ref 1 is the website of the manufacturer, Ref 2 is from a source which claims to engage in paid-promotion and Ref 3 is slightly better (with some acclaim) but equally dubious.

Overall, nothing apart from the fact that setting up of a huge wind-farm has been approved by PRC, (which does not even guarantee a completion).See WP:NOTNEWS. ∯WBG^converse 18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look, but I can't find anything that's not sourced to a press release, or otherwise an independent source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "delete", but am relisting it after a user provided additional sources on my talk page (permalink). Please take these into consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric and Ritchie333: This is to advise you about this relisting. Sandstein 18:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our coverage of significant infrastructure has always been comprehensive, even for major proposals, and considering the topic, the sourcing is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that we shall grant an independent article to major proposals, which no mainstream reliable source has even minimally published about. The entire coverage is based on churnalism and in niche-area-sources. ∯WBG^converse 03:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the ieefa.org is a junk source. Though it is lifted from The Albuquerque Journal https://www.abqjournal.com/1193178/pattern-energy-harnesses-nms-blustery-gusts.html. I Suggest looking at the other major on shore and offshore proposed project articles most are a similar standard to the way this one is, and this article can be easily improved.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RonaldDuncan, Other shit exists. ∯WBG^converse 12:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric to quote WP:OSE"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. I suggest you read it next time, and we stop firing insults at each other :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was not intended to be insulting and I apologize, if it came across as so:( Will reply in a while.∯WBG^converse 13:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Over Sandstein's t/p, Ronald has self admitted that his sources are press-releases or derived from them and that too in niche websites. He deems the one from UtilityDive to be non-press-release based but as I said in my nomination statement, the source has self-declared to indulge in paid-promotion. ∯WBG^converse 03:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It fits well with the list of large proposed onshore windfarms List_of_onshore_wind_farms#Large_proposed_wind_farms. I have added it to the list. The article can be improved with some history which has got references. There are independent sourced references for all the points in the article including the authorities decision to approve the project. In terms of the existing stub articles it is about mid quality (and yes they are not great quality:). The offshore proposed wind farms look like they are better quality articles, List_of_offshore_wind_farms#Largest_proposed, however entries point to one article. Happy to have a go at improving this article and moving it towards the standard of the proposed offshore wind farms. Even as it is I think it should stay.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly provide those independent sourced references. ∯WBG^converse 12:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will update article :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No updates, yet........... ∯WBG^converse 08:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Keep :) Now has ref to local news (ALBUQUERQUE Journal) as well as trade news. Major proposed wind farms are well established as being sufficiently Notable.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it formally passses the GNG, but it's very much a run-of-the-mill wind farm. --Slashme (talk) 14:29, 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 speedy delete per WP:G7 - author blanked the page in good faith and an admin deleted the page. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zerozero.pt[edit]

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

First of all this page has not any references which shows the page os notable, this page should be deleted lack of references and its looks like spam. Azkord (talk) 16:29, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandragora (novel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK No claims of notability. No secondary sources other than blogs. No awards, no indications of best seller status. Rogermx (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, a 1992 CBCA older readers award shortlist recipient, and multiple reviews including The Age, The Mercury (Hobart), The Examiner (Tasmania), The Weekend Australian, The Sun-Herald, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times, Magpies: Talking About Books for Children, and Reading Time, i found this out from here and here, unfortunately this appears to be a book that has not made it across the pond to the "good ol US" (WorldCat has it held by under 100 libraries - still pretty good for a 25 year old "kids" book that hasnt won any major awards), hence the dearth of overseas reviews, and lack of online resources available to make a well referenced article. ("well, coola, get your little tushie over to canberra and get writing!!!":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple's very sound analysis. I wish more editors understood that trade books by notable authors, published in pre-internet times, are very likely to meet notability standards, because newspaper reviews were much mor common, if not typical, but that those source are often not accessible online, but are best found by consulting print sources, such as book review indexes, available in major libraries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: As it stands, the article doesn't say anything about the significance of the book, and basically just retells the plot. It needs the references listed above to be included in the article as well, of course. --Slashme (talk) 14:34, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slumber Party Slaughter[edit]

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

Non notable film, no coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. It won an award at a non-notable film festival; the citation supporting this is improperly formatted and just goes to the homepage for that film festival, but digging through the website leads me to this, which should rest any doubts of the award's notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio, added G12, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't really care one way or another if it's deleted. I just simply re-wrote the plot to take care of the copy-vio issue. The diffs where the copy-vio originated can be rev/del. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks its clean now, still needs revdel but am not seeing any reviews or much rs coverage apart from Film Affinity- am neutral now Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no critic reviews for this film on metacritic so i think it didn't make any mainstream newspaper, there are some refs and a long cast list but most of the refs are describing winning awards of little importance or similar fair. Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I do see the argument that it may be non-notable, but it looks like it stars some notable actors like Carradine. Article probably just needs to be less promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the involvement of notable actors does not make the film itself notable. At the very least, WP:NFILM makes no mention of inheriting notability from actors in its list of inclusionary criteria. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per nominator. I wouldn't bother to comment, because the other commenters have already covered the topic well enough, but seeing as the discussion has been relisted multiple times, my opinion is: although it has some references, it seams to be absolutely a WP:ROTM slasher film that didn't have any real impact in the genre. --Slashme (talk) 14:49, 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. I remind colleagues that WP:V, which directs that contested unsourced material must be removed, is core policy and can not be overridden by local consensus. This article has been unsourced since creation in 2006 and remains so after 12 years, and 3 weeks of AfD. In this case, core policy dictates that AfD is cleanup. The article can be userfied for improvement, and recreated once it is adequately sourced. Sandstein 20:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Air Route Traffic Control Center[edit]

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

I'm sure this nomination is going to be controversial, but here goes.

Totally unreferenced since it was created in 2006. Tagged for no references in 2007. Tagged again for no sources in 2015. Still has no sources.

There's no doubt NY Center exists. There's no doubt that Air Traffic Control, in general, is notable. There's no doubt that the ARTCC system, in general, is notable. But an individual center? No.

All of the US ARTCCs have similar articles. All with similar problems. But let's start with this one.

Most of the material in this article is just plain aviation cruft. The details of sectors, sector names, frequencies, etc. Some of that you can compile from the standard aviation charts (frequencies, sector boundaries). Some of it (sector names), I don't have any clue where to find. Presumably some internal FAA document, so WP:PRIMARY. But, in any case, none of this is sourced and even if it was, it's pure trivia.

For background, I'm a pilot (although I haven't flown in years). When I was flying, I was in the New York Area. So I have some basic understanding of how all this works.

I did a bunch of searching to see what I could find. If you want to repeat that experiment, be aware that you'll find lots of stuff. But, be careful about discerning what's a WP:RS and what's not. There's a highly organized universe of aviation gamers out there, who have built a lot of websites with this kind of data. One of them, I had to read very carefully to figure out that I was looking at one of the gaming sites, and not an official FAA site. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable --DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce it's notable enough, and the article contains information that isn't in, and wouldn't be appropriate for, ARTCC. Just whittle it down to information that might interest the general public, or which doesn't belong on a chart or in a phone book. --Moralis (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about which information that would be? And WP:RS for it? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moralis/sandbox currently has a really lazy example of what it might look like. No real effort put in, it'd obviously have to be done with more care than this =P --Moralis (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As always at AfD, criticism of the current state of the article is responded to with AfD is not WP:CLEANUP. I can readily find sources with non-trivial coverage;
McCartin, Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America here, here, and here
Thomas, Tree House to Palm Trees, admittedly, a personal reminiscence, but still reliable with usable facts.
Adequacies of the Air Traffic Control Systems in the New York City Area, primary, but usable once notability is established with other sources.
Aviation Weekly reporting on automation of the Center in 1958.
Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies, has a lengthy description of the part the Center played in 9/11

There are many scholarly sources that have coverage, I don't have time to list them all, here's one,

Williamson, "Software safety and reliability" has a lot of details on software outages at the Center.

I also note that searches using the Centre's abbreviation "New York Center" turn up a lot more results, although it is necessary to add "aviation" or "aircraft" or somesuch to filter out the irrelevant ones. SpinningSpark 14:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The McCartin book certainly mentions NY Center, but only in passing, as examples of ATC procedures which happened in any radar room of the era, or of events that just happened to have occurred in New York. It would be an excellent reference for an article about PATCO, but not to establish WP:N for NY Center. The same comments go for the other sources you cited. They're fine to establish specific facts, but don't do anything for WP:GNG. Everything is either WP:PRIMARY, or generic to ATC overall, and not specifically about NY Center, even if it's mentioned as an example.

You are certainly correct that "New York Center" is what everybody in their right mind calls it, and thus makes a better search term. I've added additional template:find sources lines to help people in their searching. It will still help to tweak those searches with additional terms, but I'll leave that up to others to explore as they may. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assesment of the sources posted in AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with SpinningSpark's comments above. I think this is a borderline case, but we should err in favor of inclusion rather than exclusion. Sekicho (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is unreferenced aviation cruft, completely unreferenced, and likely containing a lot of original research. I'm not convinced by the sources shown above, which appears to confuse air traffic control with this specific traffic control center. SportingFlyer talk 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Delete or Rewrite I'm in Australia. "New York air traffic control" is what I think of in the context of incidents like Flight 1549, 9/11, etc - and indeed, I find results searching for that phrase, suggesting that it's a notable topic. It turns out, though, that there is more than one air traffic control centre in New York, and often news stories don't say which one was involved, eg [5]. This one [6] does say which one; this one [7] probably refers to the one this article is about, this one definitely does [8] .... (I realise that these are probably not SIGCOV, as the focus of the articles is on the incidents which occurred or might have occurred, or perhaps on (mis)communication within air traffic control, the effect of power cuts on air traffic control.) From my perspective, it seems that an article about 'New York air traffic control' would be useful, as in, it's something that people outside aviation would be likely to want to find out more about in an encyclopaedia, with information such as that there is more than one NR air traffic control centre; the amount of traffic they control; notable incidents in which they have been involved, etc. The intro and Section 1 of the current article could form part of such an article. I must admit that I have not searched for the terms in the rest of this article, but I highly doubt that they would be notable outside aviation. I would not vote to keep the article as it is - it should either be deleted or thoroughly revised and renamed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:39, 13 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) 15:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her Brothers[edit]

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

Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage. The strongest notability claim here is touring the Canadian province of Alberta, but NMUSIC's touring criterion requires a national tour that received reliable source coverage, not just a provincial tour "covered" only by a WordPress blogger. And the referencing here is 6/8 bad sources that don't assist notability at all, such as more WordPress blogs and primary sources, while the only reliable sources here are two articles in their local hometown community pennysaver -- which is not enough coverage to claim that they would pass NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I opened the refs and they indicate the band isn't notable, they are local in nature or otherwise small time. The band took 9 years to release their first album which makes me think they aren't serious. And youtube says their most watched song has ~25,000 views. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 17 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 The 1975. Anything worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music for Cars Tour[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy notability guidelines for WP:NTOUR (mainly just a list of dates as of today). It will maybe merit an article later but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Redirecting to A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships may also be a good idea. MikeOwen ^discuss 14:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON - as yet, most of these performances are in 2019, and it still 2018 at the time of typing. We could merge the article with The 1975 when the tour has actually taken place. Vorbee (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft until the tour has been run. WP:NOTBROCHURE. WP:TOOSOON if ever. Perhaps a due weight one or two sentences, which is redirected to, in The 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect the article to The 1975. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to The 1975. Can be created again later. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:45, 15 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 The Morrow Project. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular Basic Loads[edit]

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

Article is about a product consisting of three fill-in-the-blank paper forms to create imaginary cargo manifests in imaginary military-type vehicles. Article has only one source. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to discover any additional RS and, even references in non-RS, are incidental mentions. Fails GNG. As a backup option to delete, redirect to The Morrow Project might be fine, though this is such a common term it seems it would be better to free this space for an article on a real world automotive topic. Article is receiving about one (1) view every 3-4 days so it's not like this is an in-demand search term. Chetsford (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to The Morrow Project. BOZ (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Morrow Project. Single source is a short capsule review (which from the TOC of The Spacegamer consists of 13 reviews in the space of 6 pages - this one listed towards the end as a playing aid the Morrow Project). Not discussed independently of the Morrow Project. This article is short, and the target of the merge is fairly short as well and could definitely list the various playing aids and expansions. There seems to be very little reason to create a spinoff for this particular playing aid. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on reconsideration per Icewhiz' reasoning, I have no particular objection to a Merge. Chetsford (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Icewhiz. SportingFlyer talk 22:40, 12 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) 15:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thycotic[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NCORP. The references provide either superficial levels of coverage or are based on news releases by the company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- Mr X 🖋 23:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as G11 and likely UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page: [9]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Company is similar to other cybersecurity companies that already have wiki pages up, examples: Datto, JAL, as per WP:NCORP article is sourced by reliable, independent sources.LTMajorPayne (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Keep, Article has solid foundations and while I do agree it needs a bit of work establishing some of it's claims, I think the current sources being cited are more than enough to avoid a deletion as per WP:NCORP. F252421c (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— F252421c (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. I believe there's enough coverage to warrant an article, there are now more than 15 references in the article, and that helps establish notoriety. The article should be improved with newer references as the company gets more coverage but as of right now I don't see a reason to delete this. Nalfien (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalfien: The Wikipedia community has by consensus come up with a set of criteria to determine if a company is notable (worthy of an article about it on Wikipedia). Please see WP:NCORP, which explains that there are several criteria which must all be met for a source to count towards establishing the notability of a company. Those criteria have changed this year, and are more exacting then they were when you previously contributed to Wikipedia. I have left you a message on your user talk page with some links that will help you as you participate in your first deletion discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my nomination:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Inc.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	One mention. Says nothing about the company, just that it co-produced a report
Seekingalpha.com	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Substantial, independent coverage by an analyst
techcrunch.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Two mentions in listings; no coverage
tech.co	N	N	Y	N	N	The new year's resolution of the founder; nothing about the company
crn.com.au	Y	N	Y	N	N	Clearly based on a press release
forbes.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	A paragraph about one of the company's products, in a listing. Nothing about the company
wboc.com	Y	N	N	N	N	Press release issued by the company
infopoint-security.de	Y	N	N	N	N	Article likely based on press release
eweek.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Based on press release - Thycotic talking about itself
nbc-2.com					N	Failed verification - nothing on the page about the company
fortune.com	N	N	Y	N	N	One paragraph announcing an acquisition
inc.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	Just a listing - and appearing 2,260th in something is no indication of notability
crunchbase.com	N	Y	Y	N	N	Mention of an acquisition
securityboulevard.com	N	N	?	N	N	Press release; 436th out of 500 in a listing
deloitte.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	436th out of 500 in a listing
Total qualifying sources					1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Reasoning for Techcrunch.com (No. 3 reference) – Thycotic is better than Cyber Ark. and everyone it Reference listed as containing two references but no coverage. The article is recognizing established security giants such as Symantec while somewhat briefly highlighting multiple up-and-coming security companies including Okta, Auth0 and SailPoint — and Thycotic. This article is not meant to profile companies with extensive background information. Rather, it is providing a quick scouting report on the several growing companies that are innovating in the various sectors of security, including “Identity” where Thycotic is listed as an innovator. The coverage is of the industry and possible changes, not of specific companies. Secondly, the reference is marked as lacking significance, but TechCrunch is one of the top technology news sources in the world. In this article, published by one of the most-read tech news outlets, Thycotic is listed as a company that could step up as it follows in the footsteps of well-established firms such as Palo Alto Networks.

@LTMajorPayne: WP:CORPDEPTH makes is clear that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists" counts as trivial coverage, not significant coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for CRN.au (No. 5) not being independent/secondary is invalid – Samira Sarraf is an independent journalist and wrote the article in his own words, including sources ‘According to Scott Hagenus…’ If you click https://www.crn.com.au/author/samira-sarraf-853030, it shows his independent articles. His official Muck Rack profile is: https://muckrack.com/samira-sarraf/articles. Therefore, explanation “Clearly based on a press release” is inaccurate, subjective and invalid.

@LTMajorPayne: WP:ORGIND makes the distinction between the journalist being independent, and the content being independent. If the content is simply a regurgitation of a press release then the content is not independent. It is clear that this is based on a news release because other publications, for example this one, produced a similar article on the same date. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for Forbes (No. 6) not being significant/secondary is invalid - This attribution is for product Secret Server (which also mentions the company), not for company. Therefore, explanation “A paragraph about one of the company's products, in a listing. Nothing about the company” is false and invalid.

@LTMajorPayne: The review of Thycotic's product isn't written by Forbes. It is written by someone from G2 Technology Group. We don't know if their view is reliable. The article merely mentions Thycotic, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Multiple such mentions on the web don't make a company worthy of an encyclopedia article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've added several more references to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) 03:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LTMajorPayne: None of these help establish notability:

www.channelpartnersonline.com: Article about a survey conducted by Thycotic, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage about the company, not independent
www.securitynow.com: Article about security in Microsoft Windows, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.foxnews.com: Article about election security, with a quote from Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.usatoday.com: Article about election security, written by Joseph Carson (chief security scientist at Thycotic). Not significant coverage, not independent
www.bloomberg.com: Information provided by Arellia Corporation, a subsidiary of Thycotic - not independent
www.bloomberg.com: Information provided by a subsidiary of Thycotic - not independent

Delete per nom and K.e.coffman Catrìona (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Also review all contributions by the creator, who is pretty clearly and undisclosed paid-for editor. Pretty much all of them are paid-for spam yellow page entries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Bonora[edit]

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

This has been deleted three separate times for having no credible ascertation of notability. This time, I'm proposing that it be deleted AND WP:SALTed so we don't have to waltz this waltz a fourth time. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unless I'm missing something, the subject may be at least somewhat notable. I have found some non-trivial coverage in books, for example [10][11] and this from Sesame Street Magazine [12]. I'm vacillating between weak keep and weak delete, but I'll wait to hear from others before casting my !vote.- Mr X 🖋
Comment - Would co-founding Kairos contribute towards meeting WP:ACADEMIC#8? Thsmi002 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT per nom. Really a fourth deletion discussion shouldn't be needed. W C M_email 12:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She clearly has performed in non-trivial roles in a number of notable movies and television shows. The article is hardly great, but it passes WP:GNG, and it getting deleted repeatedly is not going to help it grow. I think it keeps getting recreated because she's clearly notable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm hard-pressed to find widespread RS for her. Obviously Sesame Street Magazine would have an article about her. Otherwise, I see a few passing mentions in books saying that she voiced this or that character. This doesn't meet GNG. Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think co-founding Kairos makes her notable. I also don't believe she meets the notability standards for actors or authors. Finally, I don't see the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. A Muppet puppeteer being mentioned in Sesame Street magazine is not independent. There are a few passing mentions, but that's not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she does meet WP:NACTOR, having had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - the article lists multiple notable films and shows, over at least an 11 year period (1985-1996). - and WP:NACTOR specifically includes voice actors, which presumably can be extended to puppeteers/voice actors. She probably also meets #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I don't see how #2 is to be established without reference to magazines and websites related to the shows or the person. I also found this book, For Such a Time as This: Kampouris and Kairos [13] (which I see another editor found), which will not count to establish notability as it was written by an editor of Kairos, but does have information on Bonora's childhood and career. My understanding of the Additional notability criteria is that they exist because in some fields there is not likely to be SIGCOV of the person, and therefore criteria are established for deciding whether someone in those fields is notable. Someone who was a puppeteer/voice actor should surely be assessed against WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She worked many of the recurring puppets appearing on Sesame Street, including better-known ones such as Goldilocks, Clementine, Meryl Sheep and others; she is also one of the few female Muppeteers that was with the troupe, working alongside Richard Hunt, Steve Whitmire and more. She directly influenced Joey Mazzarino (Murray monster performer) and writer (Muppets from Space, much Elmo content) to join the Muppeteers, through a class she taught. If the article is deleted, I am definitely against SALTing because I think the best source of info about her will be more from other people's articles and books - possibly even from Jim Henson's "Red Book" diary. There is definitely a "fandom" around the Muppets and their performers, I just think there will need to be extra digging to get some more sources that will be helpful. http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum/threads/camille-bonora-appreciation-thread.59469/ shows some potential areas to find content for her article. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misunderstood the request for salt, its not being requested here to keep her off permanently, its being requested until we can decisively show she has the credible assertation of notability to be on site. Sometimes people are eligible for inclusion and fall short, they need that extra push to get across the finish line and thats whats happened here. The article's come back with the same content and citations several times, if it is to stay it needs better content and more citations. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at improving the article with what I could find and access in a day and a half. Hopefully, it helps. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the closing admin must discount the views above which say that the page should be deleted because it has been three times already. The page has been deleted twice under CSD and once under BLPPROD—in each previous case, what was being assessed was the current state of the article. In AfD, what matters is the notability of the subject, regardless of the current state of the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:56, 16 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Alohilani Resort Waikiki Beach[edit]

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

Highly promotional. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a longtime member of WP:HOTELS, I've created and improved upon my fair share of hospitality-related articles over the years. Recently, I've put considerable time into the Waikiki Beach area - one of the most popular hotel destinations on the planet. The nominator of this AFD has cited WP:ORGIND as cause. Looking over the 12 reliable sources used to support this mere 9 sentence article, this is not a credible justification. Of the current 12 cited sources, 6 are independent, non-industry specific news outlets and 4 are from well-regarded, reliable travel publications. The article is not "highly promotional" – it's cut-and-dry, just the facts, nothing flowery, nothing fancy. Pretty standard fare for hotel articles throughout Wikipedia. As always, I am open to having (and well anticipate) the article receiving improvements by my fellow Wikipedians. Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large resort hotel passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 15 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) 15:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Antion Christopher McGuire[edit]

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

A singer who has made two singles that were never released..... Emeraude (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He's made a few more songs since the article was last updated, under his alias of Hyfee SOSG. But they're just tracks he's uploaded to SoundCloud [14], I can't find any evidence they've been made available commercially. Seems to be a case of someone who's a legend in his own fantasies... his Twitter account has been blocked, and his Facebook page is full of Kanye-style rants against his haters, but at least Kanye is able to write intelligibly. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His Facebook is gone now as well. Absolutely no notability and fails WP:GNG spectacularly. Was already deleted back on December 25, 2010: "Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something." Article does not appear to have evolved any further. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:29, 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 keep. The article has been also retitled to List of Czech artists. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech artists by date[edit]

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

At the moment there are more than 800 articles about Czech artists at enwiki. So this list is just a totally random list with no value added. This list may be useful in the beginnings of wikipedia (with few articles about Czech artist), but not now. See also section is the only one useful.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Jklamo (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work but is a valuable article...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Czech artists, same convention as all other country's artists lists. We don't need to have article by date. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to that name change...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. A list of notable Czech artists easily meets WP:SAL. If all 800 were added and WP:SIZE became an issue, it could be split at a later date. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. Catrìona (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above Spiderone 10:47, 16 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) 15:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McLeod (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY, and no claim to meet WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 20:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has never played in any hockey league that guarantees an article to every player — he's played only in leagues where a player only clears our notability standards for hockey players if they can be shown to have earned a significant distinction above and beyond simply being on the ice, but "most penalized player in the league in one season" is not the kind of distinction we're looking for. And this is referenced exclusively to the self-published websites of his teams, not to reliable source coverage that's independent of him. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly low inclusion criterion for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 04:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Villand[edit]

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

This was nominated before, and somehow kept. In my opinion, though of course this is a subjective remark, the article creator severely bludgeoned the discussion, causing myself to cease participating in it. (Check for yourselves) But here we go again. My concern is that the subject is nowhere near passing our WP:GNG guide or other inclusion guidelines.

This is a stable link to the article as it looks upon this nomination, and I will adress the nature of the references. Remember that a reference must be non-trivial coverage in a secondary source independent of the subject to confer notability.

primary source
published by the subject
published by the subject
published by the subject
published by the subject / database entry, trivial coverage
published by the subject / database entry, trivial coverage
a "petit piece" as we call it here, in a local newspaper. Pretty trivial
primary source
published by the subject
same as no. 1
database entry, trivial coverage
published by the subject
database entry, trivial coverage
database entry, trivial coverage
same as no 5
same as no 6
give me a break... ok, primary source
general link to a website, also dead link, meaningless
general link, not about the subject
published by the subject
published by the subject (cv printed in the preface of his own book)
primary source

Conclusion: not a single independent non-trivial source. A film was made describing his ALS case, but this was more of an educational/informational film produced within a small college. Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable subject, either under GNG or NPROF or any other guideline. Victim of WP:REFBOMBing that should be put out if its misery. Catrìona (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agreee that this topic is not noteable. He does not meet WP:Academic or WP:GNG.CircleGirl (talk) 08:02, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka Lal[edit]

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

Not notable. No RS, just social media fluff Blitzcream (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing in article (IMDB) does not establish notability. My BEFORE shows little else. In terms of the claim to notability in the IMDB source - there's alot of fluff in the profile there - but the only thing that could be notable - "When she was 14, Agnieszka won a nationwide audition for the popular youth TV show Rower Blazeja. The show was aired live 5 times a week on Polish National Broadcaster Chanel 1. Agnieszka co-hosted and worked as an associate producer on the show between 2002 and 2004, making her the youngest host in its history. Soon after, she hosted the public television show Raj as well as acted in various television commercials. - so a single gig as a youth host, followed by an associate producer role and directing a documentary. Per the IMDB of the youth program - [15] the show had a rather large multitude of hosts. So - I don't see how she meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.139.86 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject was recently featured in a News article about how she ran a scam on her followers. Not sure if that adds to her notability. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:44, 14 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. Unquestionably meets WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:NBIO. The nominator also had a conflict of interest as they appear to be the subject of the article. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Le Novère[edit]

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

The interest of this page for the general public is very limited. The only content is biographical, and of a CV-like nature. Because I have not been involved in anything significant outside my very technical domains, there is very little people can actually learn from the page. I believe very few if any other Wikipedia pages link to it. So the notability criteria is disputable. On the other side, the page is crushing my family and I. It links to very harmful articles in the press (I was officially fired from my job not because of the crime, but because of the press reports). These articles not only preclude me to rebuild any kind of life, but also affect dearly my parents and my siblings. Since we have a quite unusual name, any search for them returns first the press articles about my offence. Some of my family members are actually public people, including with electorate mandates. Finally, I committed a crime - for which I am not trying to find excuses -, and I was punished. I am now serving this sentence every single minute of what became my life. Any attempt of redemption requires me to disappear and rebuild. Having an eternal page in one of the most prominent website, and the associated niceties such as the Google search infobox, do not help. Nicolas Le Novère (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE Clear WP:COI as the proposer is the subject of the page. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Of course I am the subject. I do not hide that. It is a "disclosed COI". And I do not intend to weight on the further discussion. I am merely asking the deletion. And then you guys decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenov (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 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 Mongoose Publishing. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah: The Roleplaying Game[edit]

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

This unsourced page on a commercial product was originally a redirect to the publisher's page but was resurrected by an IP editor. There are no sources in the article and a basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, JSTOR) finds no WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. It fails the GNG and should, preferably, be deleted, though I'd be fine seeing the page simply returned to a redirect in the way it once was as a second choice. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found - I found brief notes in Designers & Dragons, and will see what else is available - otherwise restoring to the original redirect per nom is acceptable. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any other coverage which might pass WP:GNG apart from the source in the article. No comment on the single source currently added to the article as I don't have access to it, but "brief notes" may not be substantial coverage, though the lack of other independent coverage concerns me. Fine with a redirect and maybe a blurb at the series page. SportingFlyer talk 17:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, but restoring the redirect is fine. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Does not meet WP:NVG to be a stand-alone page. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:38, 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 merge to User experience design. The direction of the merge can be discussed on the respective talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experience design[edit]

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

pure business jargon, without any definite meaning DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic may well seem vacuous but it is so notable that there are numerous books about it and a selection of titles follows. If people are able to write entire books about something then it shouldn't be difficult for us to summarise them. I fancy that a good designer would not look kindly on Wikipedia's current user experience. See WP:BITE... Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Design: A Framework for Integrating Brand, Experience, and Value
Agile Experience Design
Agile User Experience Design
Adventures in Experience Design
Digital Experience Design
User Experience Design
Eye Tracking in User Experience Design
Experience Design: Concepts and Case Studies

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to user experience design. The very first sentence calls this "the practice of designing [..] with a focus placed on the quality of the user experience and culturally relevant solutions." As it happens, we already have an article about that. I'm not seeing any meaningful encyclopedic distinction. There is also interaction design, which is related. My !vote would be merge if more of the content were sourced, and I wouldn't be opposed to a close as selective merge. The !vote above, and the sources that accompany it, only serve to show the notability of user experience design rather than why this should be a separate article beyond that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the wrong way round as the experience design page is older than the user experience design page, having been created in 2005. The source titles above also indicate that the shorter title is more common. Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, it's the more recent article which should be merged into the older one. Andrew D. (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I don't have a strong feeling over which direction it should be merged I'm seeing a lot of results for both search, even though many of them are talking about the same thing. I'll leave a message on that talk page since we're talking about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:53, 12 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. No independent, reliable sources discussing the topic in-depth were presented, so fails GNG, and no other guideline seems to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Moore (author)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non notable. Fringe proponent of low-carb dieting. As it stands no reliable references on the article apart from low-carb primary sources. Cannot find reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG Skeptic from Britain (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the most coverage of him that I can find in mainstream media; the rest are just mentions in lists of low-carb advocates. Catrìona (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR Anarchie76 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not satisfy WP:Author. He is not widely cited, hence there are no reliable sources that mention him. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchie76: Care to identify the independent, reliable sources that would indicate passing WP:NAUTHOR? Catrìona (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable sources are as follows, @Catriona::

"The Complete Guide To Fasting" (Jason Fung, Jimmy Moore).

No. 1 in All Books, Amazon Canada. 16th October 2016

No. 4 in iBooks, 17th October 2016

No. 1 in Health and Fitness, Toronto Star Bestsellers, week ending 1st December 2018

No. 10 in Wall Street Journal Best Sellers List, week ending 11th November 2018

No. 1 in The Globe and Mail, Bestsellers: Self-Improvement, 29th October 2016

"Cholesterol Clarity" (Jimmy Moore, Eric C. Westman)

No. 1 in Nutrition, Kindle France, 22nd September 2013

No. 1 in Hot New Releases, Nutrition, Kindle Japan, 28th August 2013

No. 2 in Nutrition, Kindle Germany/Austria, 28th August 2013

No. 8 in Nutrition, Kindle UK, 28th August 2013

No. 1 in Hot New Releases, Nutrition, Kindle US, 28th August 2013

"The Ketogenic Cookbook" (Jimmy Moore, Maria Emmerich)

No. 63 in All Books, Amazon Canada

No. 1 in Cookbooks, Food & Wine, Special Diet, Healthy, Amazon Canada

No. 3 in Cookbooks, Food & Wine, Vegetables & Vegetarian, Amazon Canada

No. 15 in Books, Health, Fitness & Dieting, Amazon Canada

No. 3 in The Globe and Mail, Bestsellers, Cooking and Food, 15th August 2015

No. 9 in The Globe and Mail, Bestsellers, Cooking and Food, 19th September 2015

No. 1 in iBooks, Diet Cookbooks, 18th July 2015

"Keto Clarity" (Jimmy Moore, Eric C. Westman)

No. 1 in Low Carb Diets, Amazon.com, 3rd August 2014

No. 53 in All Books, Amazon Canada, 6th August 2014

No. 78 in All Books, Amazon.com, 6th August 2014

No. 85 in All Books, Kindle Canada, 5th August 2014

It is, of course, impossible to provide links for all these rankings, since they are in the Deep Web, but I'm sure you'd agree that ratings from consumers, putting their money where their mouths are, are confirmation of the notability of an author.

There are reviews by the ton on various websites such as Amazon, but since they're merely written by people who have improved their health through following the advice in the books, rather than by journalists and academics, they are of no value, so I shall not weary you by linking to them. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are NOT reliable secondary sources! Linking to books written by the author on Amazon lists is not what was asked here. We are after reliable independent sources that mention Moore or his ideas. None exist. By Wikipedia policy this article should not exist. The man is not notable. I do not believe these lists establish anything. Kindle? Amazon? Really? MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the references I provided are reliable… they help to establish two things: (a) that Jimmy Moore is an author, and (b) that a great many people have bought his books, of course recommending them to others on the way. No claim has been made as to the significance of Jimmy's research (which would require peer review and secondary citations), simply that he is an author and that he has had a lot of influence. Consequently, he is by definition notable. Anarchie76 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a single reliable reference. If he was notable then some book reviews would exist. Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, New York Times have never mentioned him etc. His only fan-base is the low-carb community, he has no mainstream recognition. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should not just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This same vote is copied over and over again by this editor in seemingly random AfDs. I would hope they learn how to quote a notability guideline or some other policy for their votes. Ifnord (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the above vote by Mellis has put the same comment on 5 afd discussions [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], the vote is driven by personal agenda not a Wikipedia policy. This deletion discussion has been put on twitter amongst the low-carb community [21] and is now advertised by Jimmy Moore on his Instagram [22] MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing for this article is about as low-quality as can be imagined: what he himself says in interviews with his supporters, and the notoriously unreliable e-marketing rankings. (The NYTimes indicates what books were subject to largescale purchases, presumably for sale by the adherents of whatever the book is supporting. Amazon leaves them in.) DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In its present form, Delete. Not opposed to reconsidering, should proper reliable sources be located and integrated into the article. Strikerforce^Talk 21:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he does sell some books on low-carb diets, but he fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This is a niche market. No significant coverage to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 09:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR. Ifnord (talk) 12:41, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeduc-cd[edit]

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

One-sentence unsourced stub not expanded for 12 years, could not find any hint of reliable sourced coverage anywhere, not even passing mentions in the specialized press. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective sources. No coverage outside distro sites. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 13 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 The Latin American Xchange. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ortiz (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

And Santana (wrestler)

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

Subject are not independently notable.

Articles have been reverted from the redirect to The Latin American Xchange several times without discussion (and in contradiction to previous AfD, though consensus can change). Suggest to re-establish redirect to The Latin American Xchange Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Latin American Xchange as per prior AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Latin American Xchange. Not independently notable. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Latin American Xchange, then protect to prevent recreation. Still not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second AfD isn't neccesary. Redirect and page protect/SALT Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As nom said, consensus can change so I do think a second AfD is appropriate, but ultimately they're still not notable. Against SALTing in case they become notable in the future, that makes it harder to restore. Just deal with disruptive editors as we normally would. Smartyllama (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: the redirects could be protected for 1-2 years. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 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 and redirect to Transportation in the United States. Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities with most households without a car[edit]

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

Far too specific and poorly updated to be of any value to the reader. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 05:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a one-off study that's been made into its own (useless) wiki-article. And WP:NOTSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical useless listcruft trivia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable statistics from four years ago. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transportation in the United States. This is vaguely similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most fuel efficient cars sold in the United States. Here, the information is already at Transportation in the United States#Road transportation and I see no reason not to redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia Spiderone 10:27, 16 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 and redirect to Zachary Taylor. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no sign subject was noted for anything of her own merit (meaning outside of family connections). Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:BIO, she doesn't warrant a standalone article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge the bit about the impact of the deaths on their parents, especially their father, into his article. WP:NOTINHERITED RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on her own. She died at age 4, in an era when children of celebrities were not heavily covered, her father was a rising man in the military but not yet a war hero or top ranked politician. Her life and death can be mentioned in the article on her father, but it is not worth mentioning in a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this nom is just an attempt to bolster the nominators effort to delete George Bush's daughter's page, after this page was used as a precident for creation of that page. Subject is a historic figure and trying to merge her page into an already large page on her father is not appropriate. Even if normally this would not be a stand alone page it is an appropriate WP:SPINOUT. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushes have nothing to do with this nomination. Please stay focused on the article's subject here and her own family. There's nothing of value here that can't be concisely summarized (a paragraph at most) in President Taylor's page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information can be incorporated into her parents' articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Information about her death is already listed on Zachary Taylor's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:ECAC:B47B:CA09:5F0F (talk) 21:40, 16 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. This keep decision does not preclude a possible merge elsewhere, which can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community of shared future for mankind[edit]

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

Vague concept that's isn't discussed in detail by third-party sources Pontificalibus 07:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion. Wikipedia generally only reflects western perspectives on China. If Wikipedia genuinely wants to be of international significance, it's important to include other perspectives as well.

This initiative is of potential importance to the whole planet. It has been widely reported in Chinese, for example by the BBC ^[1] No doubt in time, as the impact becomes clearer, other contributors will expand the article in English, making it more specific. I hope that will answer CASSIOPEIA's concern about it being too vague. Thrall22 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/indepth-38655017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thrall22. Although I cannot speak Chinese, if the BBC has given it an in-depth piece (which is almost enough for notability on its own) we can assume that it has been covered in more detail by Chinese media. An alternative would be to redirect to a section of Xi Jinping or Xi Jinping Thought. Catrìona (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is already biased towards English language sources. It's clearly discussed by multiple independent commentators. We dont have any policy against vagueness. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on Xi Jinping. Novel terms used by politicians have to possess a great deal of notability to make it onto their own, separate, Wikipedia article. We sometimes forget that notability on its own is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge and not an indiscriminate collection of information items. In a few years, the subject may have a different level of notoriety; for now, on its own, this is too soon -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rishika Lulla[edit]

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

An article on Rishika Lulla Singh, the full name of this individual, was speedily deleted in March this year as being non-notable after being nominated at AfD. under their full name. She does not seem more notable now than she was then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still no more notable than previously Spiderone 10:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delate I wish I knew a more about these awards and sources, but I was finding it to be very circular. This woman may be notable, but the sources don't prove it. valereee (talk) 19:07, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Kimber[edit]

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

While Kimber won an award for his film, I cannot find significant coverage of him that would establish that he's notable by Wikipedia's standards; the article has been tagged for that issue for seven years without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a bit of a mess, but as you say, he is co-creator of an award winning film and has been nominated for British Sportswriter Award for one of his books. Reviews of the his books say that he is "one of the most original cricket writers around"Guardian and that "Kimber's cricketwithballs blog invented a style that spawned an army of imitators who could never quite match him."Cricinfo review To me this qualifies as passing WP:AUTHOR. I'll try to tidy the article and include these links as refs. Spike 'em (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied article a bit and added more refs. Spike 'em (talk) 17:01, 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 04:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards keep certainly by a straightforward reading of WP:AUTHOR I'm happy to keep the article. Kimber is well known and, I think, significant within his field and has produced a body of work which is recognised as solid. If my reading of AUTHOR is wrong then can someone ping me as I won't see responses to this otherwise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:27, 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. If necessary, I can provide the text to any editor that might be interested in seeing if there is content worth merging elsewhere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbalism and biotechnology[edit]

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

The article is an essay-form content fork of Herbalism. There's maybe some content that could be merged in the biotechnology section, but a lot of it seems to have a tenuous connection to the subject of Herbalism and is potentially WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a bad school essay on two unrelated concepts jammed together; it doesn't appear any of the references are about both. No possible redirect due to WP:XY. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. This is not going anywhere. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTESSAY. As power~enwiki says, the references don't really talk about the synthesis of the two concepts.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stairwell Theater[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article has one solid source that is significant, independent, and reliable, [23]. All the other sources are either not-independent, routine, or do not mention the subject. Looking online, I found their casting call for a production, but not coverage in reliable sources. They were founded in 2014, so it's entirely possible that it's just WP:TOOSOON, but we're a ways short of WP:NORG here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no substantial in-depth coverage of this theater company. A couple of upcoming performances announcements, that's it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a very small, fairly new theater company with limited coverage (mostly just listings) not INDEPTH and not in major publications. At the very least it is WP:TOOSOON.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Bareebe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Journalist bio that was PRODed years ago but none of the current references verify any of the statements about notability. I have not been able to verify either claim of notability via digital sources; however, as this person was/is a journalist in another country, perhaps non-digital sources exist. All of the references were written by the subject of the article. At minimum this page should be eligible for a WP:STUBIFY as it's essentially a resume. Citrivescence (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either, and the nom is correct about the sources listed in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Stauber[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. No significant acting roles, no large fan base, etc. ohmyerica (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page fails to meet WP:NACTOR, but there are also just no sources that aren't brief mentions or database listings. I found one interview source from 2017 which is hardly enough to meet WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR FWIW. Rzvas (talk) 18:58, 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.

[1] ttps://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/indepth-38655017

[1]