Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 February 12 February >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grebe Lake (Alaska)[edit]

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

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge contains dozens of lakes. A few of them are notable, being large and accessible. These lakes are neither of those things, they are in a swampy muskeg area off the road system dotted with numerous tiny lakes. There is little to say about them other than that they exist, which is all these articles do say. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious but what are the notability guidelines for lakes? As I know with human settlements we have thousands of unsourced articles about some Polish village with only 300 residents and it's considered "notable", so I had assumed that this is also the case for other geographic phenomena. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 05:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked but was unable to locate a lake-specific notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep all.Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Lakes are "notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." Plenty of sources exist for all three. One has a state recreation site. Another has a nearby airport named after it. These are not minor or disputed features but substantial geographic areas. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep? really? Could you produce some evidence to back up literally any of the claims you have just made? (even then WP:SK wouldn’t apply, but it’d be something anyway) In particular, I’m unclear on how one of these remote lakes already inside a protected area has it’s own state rec site? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked myself, you need to refine your search parameters. Grebe Lake airstrip is a private runway that is a few hundred miles from KNWR, on the other side of Wasilla. And Moon Lake State Rec Area is even further away, near Tok, closer to Canada than to KNWR. There are tens of thousands of tiny lakes in Alaska, and names get repeated. This discussion is about the three lakes by these names inside KNWR, which is on the Kenai Peninsula. None of them are on the road system at all, let alone have their own airport. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NGEO by the quote provided above. Nothing seems to exist other than coordinates. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) as no independent coverage appears to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not enough information is available on these lakes to come anywhere near establishing notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a suitable Merge candidate, possibly a list of lakes in the area? SportingFlyer (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t think so. Again, there are dozens of tiny lakes in this area. There are over three million lakes in Alaska as a whole, listing them all would be madness. Even listing the named ones would be over three thousand entries. Have a look at this map for an idea of what this area is like. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that map and the fact Alaska is a vast wilderness, it would be insanity to create a list of every lake in the state. According to WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." If a lake is notable 9 times out of 10, this is one of those cases where it is not, there is no evidence that any other information other than the location of these lakes exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these more or less all fail WP:V. Moon Lake, in particular, is odd as the most famous Moon Lake in Alaska has an epinomynous State recreation area near Tok [1]. That one is listed at List of Alaska state parks, and a redirect to that list is possible. But there is no reason not to delete the current page, as it refers to a different Moon Lake. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:39, 21 February 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 Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. ansh666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings[edit]

2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Jharkhand mob lynchings Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FailsWP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Article was created by an undisclosed paid editing sock who is still socking.[2][3] Capitals00 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd almost go for a procedural close but let me propose merge to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 which was already proposed when this afd was started. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Good option. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as stated above. MT TrainDiscuss 11:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Incidents like this are not generally worth a standalone article and indeed the facts make more sense if set in context.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 14 February 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. ansh666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down With Disney's Treatment of Franchises and Its Fanboys[edit]

Down With Disney's Treatment of Franchises and Its Fanboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable group. There are a moderate number of entries in Google that support the action the group took against Disney, but they are not of substance or in-depth about the group. reddogsix (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not seeing a substantial enough amount of coverage of them at the moment. —Ed!(talk) 23:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:57, 18 February 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. ansh666 00:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Saigal[edit]

Gopal Saigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed by original editor. Not wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is one of many articles original editor has created that have been deleted for copyright violations and/or not wiki worthy. Last I looked, he was blocked from editing due to “disruptive editing” since admins repeatedly asked him to stop and he didn’t. Also, it is a recreated article that was speedied the day before. From my watch list “9 February 2018

(Deletion log); 16:18 . . SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page Gopal Saigal ‎(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1555080/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm (TW)“ MensanDeltiologist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 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 Monumental crosses. Any sourced material may be merged from page history. ansh666 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest crosses[edit]

List of tallest crosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates information in article 'Monumental crosses' Robynthehode (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental crosses contains 12 crosses, while List of tallest crosses contains 32 entries and additional information like the construction year. Only 9 entries are in common. So it's no duplicate.
You may have a look at de:Liste von hohen Kreuzen (list of high crosses). This is an updated version of List of tallest crosses, 100% verified and referenced and with additional information. --PM3 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I think this list should not be deleted, but both lists should be merged - after chosing some meaningful definition. "Monumental crosses" is not clearly definable, and "tallest crosses" is OR, as the list is incomplete. --PM3 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- merge either way, but I do believe the topic of 'monumental' or 'tallest' crosses is notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- I agree the two lists should be merged, I find 'List of tallest crosses' to be the best name for this given the content is just in list form. Murchison-Eye (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 12 February 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. ansh666 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Konan[edit]

Christ Konan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Moldovian football player with zero mentions at Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not seeing the kinds of sources that would prove notability for this one. —Ed!(talk) 23:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seraphim System (talk) 07:05, 15 February 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. ansh666 00:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Hakeem[edit]

Neem Hakeem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of dozens of rapidly created articles that are unsourced (yeah, youtube is garbage) and I can find no evidence this meets WP:NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:36, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If God Ate Fried Chicken[edit]

If God Ate Fried Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable play that has zero mentions both at Google News and Google Books. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. A google search turns up no news coverage. Cait.123 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to suggest any notability, let alone a bunch of reviews for its broadway debut.TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments.Seraphim System (talk) 07:08, 15 February 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, given improvements to the article. Clearly meets notability, and BLPCRIME does not apply since these people have been convicted of crimes. ansh666 00:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax child sex abuse ring[edit]

Halifax child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a prod with the concern "notability, lack of sources, as per WP:NANP.", as I expect this nomination to be somewhat controversial.

In addition to those reasons, there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources document that numerous men sexually abused young girls. Satisfies WP:N and WP:RS No coverups, Edison (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, widely covered crime. Article needs improvement. BLP issues are trumped by the convictions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The BLP objection is quite absurd. The suspects were tried, found guilty, and their biographic data published by the courts and subsequently by the WP:RS. By the standard raised that child abuse convictions with names should not appear on WP, you may as well delete the Roman Polanski child rape, as clearly he was never convicted (he merely left the United States).XavierItzm (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG. The article is references. BLP objection is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Limited references, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, 2 references used to fill an entire article is absurd, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper we cannot provide an article for every single crime when there are little sources and coverage, as per wiki rules it should go.Americatcp (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We dont base our opinions on what other articles are available etc. It is based on a article to article basis. And guidelines. That there are two sources are irrelevant as long as the sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yorkshire Post is hardly reliable, it cites numbers but then doesn't give evidence for how those numbers came to be? It's almost as bad as citing the DailyMail.Americatcp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking closer at it the whole article is innacurate, the "gang" only abused one girl, while a single perpetrator abused another individual, "Another victim was also sexually assaulted by one of the gang members."[1]. Not only that, but the BBC doesn't cite any numbers like the Yorkshire Post does, again, with no mention of how it came to be. The entire article is wrong, it says over 100 from an unreliable source, and mentions two victims of the gang when it was a single victim.Americatcp (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious objection.

1. You put scare quotes on gang, as if a child getting raped by a gang of 25 men were not a horrendous gang action.

2. You accuse the Yorkshire Post of not being a WP:RS. Go and read its Wikipedia entry, and then come back.

3. You are engaging in WP:OR by questioning the figures cited by the WP:RS, and worse yet, not providing sources for your speculation. Since the WP:RS states the gang was composed of over 100 men, this must be the case, and it is not up to you to speculate why only 25 of the men were actually accused in a court of law. Surely you are aware that prosecutors do not usually charge all perpetrators?

4. You dismiss the fact only one member of the gang was convicted of raping a second victim and in your opinion this disqualifies the whole thing. Let me ask you: if a murder of crows eats a plate of cereal with one cherry on top, do you then say, "it is inaccurate to say the murder of crows ate the whole thing, because the murder of crows ate the cereal, but only one crow must have eaten the cherry"?.XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that case carries on - ... and in January 2018, 20 more men are arrested for the very same gang case arising from the same rape of the 13 year old girl.[2] XavierItzm (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s literally the guidelines for Wikipedia. If the gang was only convicted for creoles against one individual, then the article should reflect that. If a gang murders one man, but then a single member murders another, the gang hasn’t murdered two men.. you understand how that works correct? Convictions are what should be reflected, not opinions such as your own.Americatcp (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN - The article now has sources ranging from BBC 4 February 2015 to The Independent 12 January 2018. Three years of sustained coverage and it does include very in-depth coverage from The Yorkshire Post. I'd say that's pretty widespread coverage! XavierItzm (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not notable to any serious degree, while abhorrent, if we include crimes against a single individual with a Wikipedia article there would be thousands upon thousands.Americatcp (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ Lizzie Dearden (12 January 2018). "Police arrest 20 men for alleged involvement in Calderdale grooming gang". The Independent. Retrieved 7 February 2018. This week's arrests were part of the same investigation, which centres on allegations made a woman who was the victim of sexual abuse as a child in the Halifax area between 2006 and 2009.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME reads «For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.» First, the only names included are those of the men who were convicted of raping "Jeanette". Second, WP:DINC. If anyone wants to raise a discussion on the list of convicts (whose photos, names, and convictions were widely disseminated by the BBC[1] and other WP:RS[2]), then take it to the TP. Deletion is not cleanup.

WP:NOTNEWS reads "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case has been already covered for 3 years across many WP:RS. It meets the criteria for "enduring notability" plus an additional 20 men were arrested a few weeks ago for the same case. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting across years on a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. XavierItzm (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - a large grooming / sexual-abuse ring is definitely not routine news reporting. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCRIME which clearly states "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Claiming all or most crime is NOTNEWS (which is worded and intended for routine events - such as weather, sports announcements, etc.) - is a misapplication of policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::: And yet it didn't make international news, or even national news hardly, it was covered by 3 of the cited news articles as local news.. it's not a misapplication, your bias is showing.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no scandal, no cover up, we cannot include every single incident of rape or child abuse, it's not worthy of an article. Concur with K.e.coffman 's comments. Americatcp (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me, is the large numbers of people involved. This does seem notable and unusual for just the shear volume on incidents and people involved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the keep voters have even attempted to address the glaring issues with WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME; sure, you can pretend they don't exist but it makes for a particular weak !vote. Closing admin: remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP, both policies, and since this is not a ballot the outcome of this AFD should be much more obvious than you would expect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:NEXIST applies here as well as a reason for keeping the article.BabbaQ (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment- um no? WP:NEXIST May well apply but it doesn’t make it worthy of an article when there’s no lasting social difference or even national news. WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME are why it should go.Americatcp (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, yes, it does apply and refute the Deletionists rationales for deletion based on sources.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crime is clearly notable per WP:NCRIME, with extremely wide coverage of the events in national and international and political discourse around them (e.g. [4]). BLPCRIME is hardly an issue as the perps currently are not named in our article - though they definitely could be seeing that they were convicted. Per BLPCRIME we should presume non-known perps as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - and they were convicted in this case. BLPCRIME does not negate NCRIME, though it is at time an issue - in any case this argument is completely irrelevant here. It might be worthwhile to rename the article to something that contains Calderdale - e.g. Calderdale grooming gang or Calderdale gang per usage in Calderdale gang jailed for grooming and abusing girls, BBC and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question From where came the request for deletion? Should that not be recorded here?

Comment The concerns listed as warranting deletion of this article were (a) notability, (b) lack of sources, and (c) WP:BLPCRIME, which I will address in reverse order.

(c) BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Convictions have been secured in this case, so BLPCRIME cannot be a valid concern.

(b) I count six sources in this article, as follows.

  • Yorkshire Post
  • BBC News
  • Huddersfield Daily Examiner
  • Daily Mirror
  • Halifax Courier
  • The Independent
I cannot speak to all of them but am pretty sure that at least three are reliable.

(a) I was unfamiliar with the problem of child sex abuse rings in Britain until just a couple of weeks ago, when I happened upon the Rotherham case as a result of other reading. Since then I have read quite a bit about this phemomenon and see no way an instance of its occurrence may be deemed "not notable". A search of Wikipedia itself turned up the following list.

I believe it would be a mistake to delete any of these articles unless and until their material is incorporated elsewhere within Wikipedia. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim above that it made "international news" is wrong, it didn't even make "national" news. 3 of the cited sources are local newspapers, hardly national news at all. This is literally WP:NOT it's just not notable, no lasting impact, no scandal as per other comments, no cover up, and only a single victim. Per Dayirmiters comments, the "problem" of child sex abuse rings in Britain?? are you sure?? because do we include every single case of this happening in the US and say "the US has a problem of kids being abused!!" such as this report from Tennesee[3] or the one in the Tri state area with children as young as 11?[4]. There is no "problem" in Britain, and if there is then the United States has one considerably worse but yet has no articles on it. Your bias is showing. as per other comments in this thread... "remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP" by TheGracefulSlick. And they are correct, the article should go, it's not notable and not news.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um no.. it does not. There was no national news scandal, no tabloids, no "international" news of any sort. This is fact, and looking at the sources within the article, 70% are local news only, clearly a lack of impact and lack of notability.RomanskiRUS (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS report that police said the Halifax case was the largest child sexual exploitation investigation in the U.K. – "bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Roterham."[5]. I really don't see how this here Halifax case could reasonably be deleted w/o also deleting the Wikipedia smaller cases of Rotherham and Rochdale. XavierItzm (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true is it? Police make lots of statements, but where are the international coverage? where is the CNN pages? the NBC? the tabloids even? a statement that is reported by the local news in regards to a single victim comes no where near close to the other scandals.RomanskiRUS (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart is less trustworthy than my Aunt with Alzheimer's. That should be down right ignored, plus, Breitbart is not international coverage. The "national" coverage you cite is one from the beginning... to one at the end with the sentences, no update in between, the case is not followed nationally whatsoever. The only regular upadates are from the local news stations such as halifax courier, more than likely because there was only a single victim, still WP:NOT as per other users have pointed out.RomanskiRUS (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck comments by block evading sockpuppet of blocked user (and fellow sock of Americatcp). • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-sex-gang-caged-168-8219903
  3. ^ https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tbi/documents/2011%20Tennessee%20Human%20Sex%20Trafficking%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20Children%20and%20Youth.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.startribune.com/3-twin-cities-somalis-guilty-of-sex-trafficking/150258965/
  5. ^ "Child sexual abuse ring in Halifax: 25 men charged - police reaction". Halifax Courier. 9 February 2015. Retrieved 13 February 2018. police say is the largest child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation in the country - bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham
Kudos?? For what? The Independent is hardly a WP:RS and the coverage has hardly been significant to say it has been covered nationally. It’s not sufficient to establish notability at all, also if you want to maintain any shred of credibility using Breitbart as a source ruins every chance of that.Americatcp (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom - I see a lot of discussion about national/international coverage but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article per WP:NEVENT. The most important issue is, what is the lasting effect or significance of this? Based on the sources, I don't see anything supporting lasting effect or historical significance.Seraphim System (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:NEVENT claim was addressed above by Icewhiz. To summarize, from WP:NEVENT: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." (text is cited from WP:NEVENT/subsection WP:N/CA). XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Two sock !votes have been struck. One of the socks initiated the prod which triggered this AFD. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How do you know who initiated the prod please? I do not see that recorded on this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayirmiter (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further note on the sockpuppets. I have gone ahead and struck the comments of the sock puppet Americatcp, as I have noticed that Gene93k only struck the comments of sock puppet RomanskiRUS on this edit. If this is incorrect, please leave me a message and I will revert myself. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason provided for deletion, undoubtedly a notable event. Orientls (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely to have a lasting impact on the city and region even country regarding race relations and will continue to be exploited by the far right. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 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. ansh666 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Leonard (musician)[edit]

David Leonard (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability FiddleStix1217 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Over half the article is a very lengthy quote from a blog post. The music review is by a blogger. The Yelp listing is worthless and the Eater reference does not mention him. Not notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in no way even close to meeting the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NBIO and GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article already cited a review of his album, which I found gave information on his music career. I also found other news coverage of the Gordon Ramsay show debacle, and a review of the restaurant in the New York Times that introduces it with biographical information about him. I've rearranged and rewritten the article to match these sources. I think the coverage counts as 2.5 articles about him, all in major places, so I come down on the "keep" side with a GNG argument. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The restaurant, the Black Pearl may be notable, but the sourcing is not enough to establish notability for a standalone biography WP:NOTINHERITED. Seraphim System (talk) 07:39, 15 February 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. Reasonably good consensus here that WP:NPOL is not satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest H. Rosasco[edit]

Ernest H. Rosasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Mayor of small city. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was WP:POLOUTCOMES considered in this nomination? specifically, "
    • Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" And you might as well nominate every other mayor of that city for deletion as well (that's 23 articles). Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the source would not show anyone was notable. Nothing about him makes him inherently notable, and we would need widespread, indepth, non-routine and not just what is expected for a mayor coverage to show notability, which is entirely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The core notability test for mayors is WP:NPOL #2, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" — WP:POLOUTCOMES is just a clarifying statement, not the notability test in and of itself. Mayors are not always automatically kept just because they existed; they're kept if they can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. But the only source here is his own alma mater, supporting only the fact that he graduated from there, with no substance and no sourcing being shown at all for his notability as a politician — and North Adams is not large or prominent enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of any valid sourcing. A mayor of North Adams could certainly be kept if the article were well-sourced and substantive, but there's no need to keep a primary-sourced stub that just says "he existed, the end". No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JPL and Bearcat, NPOL failure.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Signifcant figure in the history of North Adams and its Ialian-American community in particular. A tribute was made to his long service on the floor of the U.S. Congress in 1985. A debate on his Pension involved Edward Markey and received subatantial coverage. There is a category including numerous mayors of North Adams and a comined article is worth considering, but deletion would be inappropriate. Plenty of sources on Google Books documenting his work and activites.FloridaArmy (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere could always claim to be a significant figure in the history of their own community — so if that were a notability freebie in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored anywhere at all. A mayor gets a Wikipedia article by being reliably sourceable as the subject of enough coverage to demonstrate wider significance beyond just their own community, not just because you can assert "significance to his community" in exactly the same way as every other mayor in all of human history could assert too. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been considering this article for a while, and have decided to vote keep. The United States Congress gave him tribute. He was a mayor, judge, etc. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Was a mayor" is not an automatic inclusion freebie, because by definition every mayor in all of human history "was a mayor", and neither is "was a judge", for the same reason. Notability is demonstrated by sourcing and substance, not by "he existed". Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've added four in-depth references about Rosasco to the article and expanded the article significantly and think the article now passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:N. I've also written up a short statement because Rosasco happens to be a really interesting case to me. I'm find with the statement being read, replyed to, or ignored, but I'm indulging myself and including it.Smmurphy(Talk)
  • Comment - This is an incredibly good test case for an important issue because North Adams is, according to List of municipalities in Massachusetts, the smallest town in Massachusetts with a mayor!
The local paper for Rosasco, the North Adams Transcript, is available at newspapers.com (if interested, check out WP:TWL for gratis accounts). He is mentioned in thousands of articles at the site, the vast majority in that paper (https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22ernest+h+rosasco%22+OR+%22e+h+rosasco%22+OR+%22ernest+rosasco%22+OR+%22ernie+rosasco%22). Focusing on key years in his life, I found a number of articles that include in depth profiles of him:
So to me this individual clearly passes WP:V and WP:NOR. There is some discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:N. In particular, regarding NPOV, I think the question is, "can local sources be independent enough to be truly reliable to to write a sufficiently neutral article?" Regarding N, I think the question is the same. I don't think there is any reason why local coverage alone means an individual isn't notable qua important and thus isn't suitable for the encyclopedia, although some disagree with me. Some might point to WP:NOT, perhaps thinking of WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I don't think this applies in many cases about local politicians where the individual had a long public career, even if a rather provincial one. This is not a case where our information is only a name in a list or something like that.
So the question is, "can local sources be independent enough to be truly reliable to write a sufficiently neutral article?" I don't know the answer. I think local sources of large localities are very likely to be reliable. In particular, a main newspaper in a city of over 50,000 or 100,000, or the main newspaper in a state or large part of a state is probably reliable for most issues where no obvious COI exists. For smaller papers, the issue is probably real; the relationship between Rosasco and the Transcript is more likely to have effected coverage of Rosasco than than the relationship between a paper and mayor in Boston or even Framingham (note: I don't know much about Framingham, so perhaps there are idiosyncratic reasons that is a bad example). But looking at those four clippings, there isn't anything in them that is particularly suspect.
I don't know how this discussion will go, but as I've expanded the article based on those sources, my guess is that the article will not be deleted - there are 4 in-depth reasonably reliable references, numerous passing mentions, and tons of unexplored search results including a congressional tribute (which I think might not mean much). I think this is the right outcome because I think the article does not violate WP:DEL-REASON or any core policies or guidelines and because WP:NOTPAPER. I also think that Wikipedia:notability = Wiktionary:notability is a bad practice. I am uncomfortable with the idea that small towns individuals should pass a higher bar because their local media is often of lower quality.
But the more interesting issue to me is that without the contribution of articles from a local paper, there is a fair chance the article would be deleted. The lesson, then, is that an article on a small-town politician, civil servant, athlete, actor, businessman, etc. may be keepable if we can access local newspaper archives, but nay not be kept if it is not clearly, overtly demonstrated that an article can be written which doesn't violate DEL-REASON, etc. I'm not sure if I like or dislike this outcome. On one hand, the existence of a bad page on Rosasco may be a nice magnet for volunteers to improve the article. It also prevents people from creating a new bad page on Rosasco by filling in redlinks at a list of mayors page. On the other hand, a bad page on Rosasco is below the standards of many experienced editors and may be worse than no article. The current concensus occasionally leans towards the later. I think that is fine, as I think experienced editors who like articles on small town figures (including myself and ███specific█examples█redacted███) should do better. But I hope that the concensus continues to be that even a small town individual may be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia if their article is not a vanity article (for instance, I'm usually disinterested in articles about living people without at least a state-level public profile), passes the core content policies, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the issue is not that local sources are necessarily less reliable than big-city media in principle — it's that purely local sourcing is merely expected to exist for all mayors. So because all mayors aren't automatically accepted as notable just because they exist, merely being able to dig out a couple of pieces of local media coverage isn't in and of itself enough to distinguish a notable mayor from a non-notable one. What we need, to make a smalltown mayor notable enough, is either (a) evidence that his coverage has expanded beyond just the local media, giving him a profile closer than usual to the statewide level that you yourself say is your usual minimum for really giving a hoot), or (b) an article that's really substantial and well-sourced to quite a lot more than just a few pieces of coverage. (Or, ideally, both a and b at the same time, but one or the other is enough.) Certainly it is possible for a smalltown figure to clear those bars — but it's never an automatic given, and I'm definitely not down with the notion, expressed by some people in some recent AFD discussions on mayors, that we should always automatically keep every article about any mayor of anywhere whose existence can be referenced to a glancing namecheck in a list. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the first part of your reply reads similar to exclusionist interpretations of SNGs (ie. that the conditions of an SNG are both sufficient and necessary) or the sixth and eighth bullet at POLOUTCOMES. My counter is that with access to a local paper, it is often possible to find evidence that can arguable meet, "Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty." part of bullet point 6. In comparison, bullet point 8 seems impossible to meet once a definition is given for "small town" (I've seen less than 50,000 or 100,000). I don't have much to say about that, some editors !vote along those lines and others don't. I'm generally opposed to exclusionist interpretations of SNG, but I don't know how to convince someone one way or another.
The middle part of the reply suggests that the "multiple" in multiple in-depth reliable sources should be a larger number the less significant the source. One doesn't get much less significant than the North Adams Transcript; is there a number that you would look for? This case is an outlier, as Rosasco gets 2000+ passing mentions with many multi-paragraph outlines of his career in the paper. I don't think I said that statewide coverage is a usual minimum; I meant to say that major newspapers in a state are very likely independent and also that I think articles on living individuals with less than state-level notoriety generally do not interest me.
The last part of your reply I mostly agree with. I am sorry that such articles aren't improved, as I think it is almost always possible to write a more substantial article (given that it was for Rosasco, who was a mayor in such a singularly small place). Anyway, thanks for indulging me, and feel free to continue the conversation elsewhere (as I don't think it is absolutely relevant to this AfD) or to ignore my reply. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that bullet point 8 is an impossible standard. Local officials can, because of a controversial actions, become a well-known politician (see Kim Davis). Similarly, a local official could become significant because they were elected to the presidency of a national organization, such as the National League of Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. tributes reprinted in the Congressional Record are inserted at the request of the member for that district of the state, and represent nothing but service to constituents.They're not only not sources showing notability , but aren't even reliable as the is no editorial control nor even institutional responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just added a bit more. Most historically important, Rosasco was a key opponent of the referendum which changed North Adams from having a Plan D city charter to a Plan B in 1957 and then was the leading proponent of the referendum which changed North Adams from having a Plan B city charter to Plan A in 1965. I don't know how common or rare such changes are, but his role was covered in other western Massachusetts and southern Vermont newspapers. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:56, 13 February 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 Elizabeth II#Ancestry. Any sourced information can be merged based on page history. ansh666 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Elizabeth II[edit]

Ancestry of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unsourced material about a living person. All but two names at the very bottom of the article could be deleted immediately and without discussion per WP:BLP. Furthermore, the article is hardly helpful. The ahnentafel format is not understandable to an ordinary reader. I know how it works yet I struggle to read it. Elizabeth's ancestry can be explained perfectly in Elizabeth II#Ancestry. Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Wójcik[edit]

Natalia Wójcik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have only one significant role, in Our Huge Adventure and Little Einsteins (the same role in a movie and TV series), so fails WP:NACTOR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My sweeps are coming up dry; unfortunately I don't see a way to perform an article rescue here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 11 February 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 most of them. A lot of conversation (and duplicate recommendations), but lacking in proof of proper sourcing and thus notability, with the exception of West Indies Yacht Club. Not particularly opposed to recreation, but only if reliable sources are used to build them. ansh666 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville[edit]

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, BEFORE doesn't show much more. I am nominating additional pages that are part of the same walled garden and rely on the same level of sourcing and BEFORE. The Yacht club actually shows up in a search - but mainly in directories and not much else, failing CORPDEPTH. All pages are connected in that this individual serves a role in them, he is head of family, were historically owned by the family, or are brands of the organization owned by the family.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford-Mandeville Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waterford-Mandeville family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cambridge Hill Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old Planteur Rum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Indies Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find nothing that suggests an article could be written about this individual and the related articles which passes WP:V. An exception could be the West Indies Yacht Club, however looking through ads I find for groups with that name, I am not clear that they all refer to the same organization, nor is it clear that they are referring to this organization - for instance I see different phone numbers. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Why when someone is doing something in the West Indies, and Jamaica particularly, we want to obliterate it. This guy is the descendant of one of the wealthier families of planters of jamaica, and still living there. If you knew about Jamaica colonial history, you would have known that this is very rare. He is a local personality. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages on local figures. Why not this one ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Waterford Mandeville Plantation page: This is an historic plantation in Belize. Suppressing this mention is like suppressing the page about Buckingham palace in London.... On the Waterford-Mandeville family page: This family has made headlines for the past 950 years or so, so why suppressing the references, which dates even from books published in 1892!!! It looks like people has been discussing this family since a long time ago! On the Cambridge Hill Plantation page: This is an historic sugar estate in Jamaica. See my comments about the other estate in Belize. They have been there since 1655... and shall not be worthy of Wikipedia ???? Nonsense. On the Old Planteur Rum page: Its an historic brand in Belize. What's the problem ? They've been producing this rum since 1885.... On the West Indies Yacht Club page: There are plenty of pages about minor yacht clubs on wikipedia, and this one, existing since 1885 shall be suppressed ??? Nonsense again. What is going on ? Everytime there is a successful thing in Jamaica, someone try to suppress it. Let us all be grey and transparent.... Complete nonsense to suppress those pages. is there is a pilot in the plane to even allow this sort of questions to be asked ??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete: But I feel you may merge the page about Terry Waterford-Mandeville with the page about the Waterford-Mandeville family, like just copying the page about him and paste it at the bottom of the family page. On the other pages (cambridge hill plantation, waterford plantation, old planteur rum, west indies yacht club) I feel they are sufficiently important locally for not being suppressed, and have even an historical importance (I visited Cambridge Hill myself a few years ago), especially as all those pages had been previously validated by other wikipedia members in 2016 and being on display since 2016, so quite a long time without issues. Jeff2A02:A03F:3E97:A300:70F1:77E2:89BB:6C88 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)— 2A02:A03F:3E97:A300:70F1:77E2:89BB:6C88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    All of these articles could in principle be Wikipedia articles - what is lacking is quality WP:RS - both in terms of WP:V and in terms of establishing WP:GNG. The existence of the Irish branch of the Waterford-Mandeville family (as opposed to the Norman ancestor) is currently sourced to - rumbelize.com (+another page there), a source that doesn't mention them, a law firm's website, yachting club website the latter two only listing names with this surname. So what we are left with is a source on Geoffrey de Mandeville (died on 1100), a source on how some of his descendants got to Ireland (without mentioning Waterford!) and then non-RS (or SELFPUB) sources on people in Belize/Jamica with the name - which beyond the sourcing quality, do not even discuss the family.Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Geoffrey de Mandeville book says nothing about the Waterford-Mandeville family - it has none of the information that it is cited to document as ref. 2, except that Geoffrey was ancestor of the Earls of Essex. It looks like fraudulent citation to me. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said, they could be wikipedia articles in principle. This mean in my opinion that they could legitimately be included. However, what I suggest, instead of suppressing those articles, is to enrich them with good sourcing material. Maybe we shall instead put a notice asking wikipedia readers to share their materials on the subject as I am sure there are plenty in books or old articles. Just people haven't yet reached to add it on wikipedia. I feel we shall instead encourages other wikipedia users to go and source those articles. This could only be done by letting those on display with a suitable banner asking for further sources. When I look at the Waterford Mandeville Family page, which is in my opinion the better sourced and the most reliable, we could see contributions for various users adding useful data about the family branches in Ireland, their names variations and many other historic details. This shows the interest on the topic. Maybe one shall also contact the head of the family for inviting him to share documents or things he may have. I just looked him up in the Debretts almanac and he is indeed registered as a member of the historic catholic nobility of Ireland, as 22nd Baronet and hereditary knight, and his title goes back to 1066. I am sure he may have data to share. But Debretts doesn't publish names online, just on their paper yearly edition. Those are just thoughts but I feel we shall side with the inclusive mood and keep those articles, just underlining the need of better sourcing. Jeff2A02:A03F:3E97:A300:70F1:77E2:89BB:6C88 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. all but consider merging . We usually do keep articles for historic families of this sort, as there is normally enough material. I don't think it matters much whether or not there are separate articles for each plantation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: - take another look at the sourcing for the family - it is basically a SYNTH - the significant English branch Mandeville (present day Duke of Manchester) is sourced to the ancestor in the 11th century. There is another Irish source (Irish Times) mentioning Mandevilles in general in Ireland. There are no sources (beyond self published or the name appearing in a list (in the law firm or yacht club for instance)) for Waterford-Mandeville. The family article contains the patently untrue claim that Mandeville, Jamaica was named for them - when in fact this was named for the son of governor who was from the English branch (separated hundreds of years from the Irish branches). In short - sourcing for the Irish branches (of which Waterford is but one) is scant and sourcing for Waterford-Mandeville does does not exist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I haven't been able to find hardly anything online for +"Waterford-Mandeville" (quotes and plus important - otherwise you get lots of hits where the two aren't near at all) that isn't from the present-day yacht club (and not in a RS), the present-day law firm (listing partners), or rumbelize.com. The sole additional info I did find was from Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (and lots of wiki clones) which currently says Sir Edward Waterford-Mandeville and his family received £22,145 for 1,359 slaves on their Jamaican estates (Airy Castle Plantation and Bellevue Plantation)[1] - which are different plantations - and more to the point not in the source provided (and if it were - we have an ancestor mentioned in a one-liner 150 years ago?).Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ UCL – Researching Slave-owners
  • Which with a little digging seems quite dubious (beyond lack of sourcing) as [6] doesn't list a Mandeville as an owner for Airy castle, and [7] doesn't for Bellevue Plantation - I'm removing this from Slavery Abolition Act 1833 on wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 08:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Don't Delete: I feel we shall just add a banner to request wikipedia users to enrich the pages. I agree with the trend described above by all (except by Icewhiz) that they are of sufficient importance to be kept, especially with what DGG said: We usually do keep articles for historic families of this sort, as there is normally enough material. I don't think it matters much whether or not there are separate articles for each plantation.JohnRandale72 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thierry Waterford-Mandeville. Neutral on the others. The individual doesn't seem to be especially notable (and doesn't seem to have any right to use a title either - membership of a religious order of chivalry does not confer a title). The other articles may be notable, especially the yacht club. The clear sockpuppeting and ridiculous claims (e.g. comparing a plantation to Buckingham Palace) going on above don't do the article any favours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) To: Necrothesp Yes titles of chivalry usually confers the right to use sir as a prenominal. However, if you had read correctly the Debretts, you would have known that he claims Sir not only for being KLJ but primarily for being hereditary knight of the realm (UK and Ireland), title his branch holds since 1066.... So he is perfectly legitimate to be on wikipedia in my opinion. Having said that, on his personal page topic, maybe it may be useful to redirect or merge with the family's page instead?

2) On the other pages I also agree that they shall be kept as it is. Jeff83.43.171.153 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— 83.43.171.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • As a very minor cadet branch of Mandeville (a emigrated to Ireland, lending his name to various TownName-Mandeville families as well as Mansfield [8]) - my understanding is that there is no hereditary title - or at least I haven't seen sources confirming such a title.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, Catholic orders of chivalry do not confer titles in the real world. And there is no such thing as a "hereditary knight of the realm". The only hereditary title that carries the pretitle "Sir" is a baronet. He's not one of those (and even if he was, we only regard the person created a baronet as being inherently notable, not his descendants). This is all complete rubbish, I'm afraid, in an attempt to make him sound more important than he actually is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To: Icewhiz yes papal nobility bears title of Sir too. There is many kind of nobility, not only the UK, but in Vatican too (Also in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, ... and so on). Its named pontifical nobility..... And you shall know also that Irish titles of nobility, which were suppressed by protestants during the reformation, were also protected by a papal bulle. By the way, in his entry in the Debretts, his name is displayed with postnominals "Bt., KLJ." You too are complete rubbish to make assertions without checking. No need to be rude my dear!83.43.171.153 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: - I do suggest you take a closer look at Waterford-Mandeville family - which is similar in its non-notability (and SYNTHY to say the least) to the individual. The two plantation articles and the rum brand also seem to be mainly connected to the subject and created due to the connection. The West Indies Yacht Club does seem to exist, and is more borderline for deletion, however I don't see RSes supporting it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I was neutral leaning delete on all the articles except the yacht club. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, except for the West Indies Yacht Club (for noe). Largely unsourced original research without significant coverage in RS; appears to be part of a nn walled garden. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial Delete - I don't have time to go through all of the nominated pages, but I was led here from Waterford-Mandeville family, which I found to be full of dubious unreferenced material, and even ostensibly-referenced material cites a book that says nothing of the sort. Remove all that, and there is hardly anything to say - not notable. If this it typical of all the pages in this walled garden, then, well, (sigh . . . ). Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a page from the West Indies Society for Colonial Studies, which sources material about this family, from the parlementary archives in London mostly. The page url: http://wisfcs.org/waterford-mandeville-family-historic-planters-families-biographies. Hopefully this would close this insane discussion of people giving their opinion without haven't open the books mentioned in reference.83.43.171.153 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - this IP address has already logged a *vote, above, so I am striking the duplicate one here. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That self-published page is rubbish when it comes to the origin of the family. It claims that they were rewarded for their service at Hastings with a coat of arms showing three lions, except that the earliest evidence of coats of arms in all of England comes from over 100 years later. It also says that Richard I granted the family the right to use a hyphenated surname, when there was no standard practice for surname usage, let alone a requirement of a royal grant to change alter one's surname, until centuries later. (Neither is given an adequate citation to enable me to figure out what the author of the we page was looking at, but that it is not a valid contemporary record is completely evident from the inherent anachronism.) Whoever put this together has credulously followed the mythology of Tudor or Stuart antiquarians (or even later sources) to present a foundation myth. Such a non-reliable self-published web site should not be viewed as contributing to notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (struck 'self-published) Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem RSey, and also bears quite a bit of similarity in some portions to the Wikipedia page. Wouldn't be surprised if the author of that web page were in contact with the present day individual for most of the claims.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BLP. I am only speaking on the original nom. No sources found to support WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but ask for better sourcing. I agree with the above comment regarding the Tudor or Stuart foundation myth, but from the article sourced at the west indies society for colonial studies, it looks like the author, whom is a journalist in one of the two major jamaican newspapers, had researched parlementary archives in London about the topic. Even if it is very likely that the royal charter of richard the first is likely to be a Tudor or Stuart docyment building the myth, the fact that this Tudor documents exists gives in my opinion substance to the family place on wikipedia. Its not wikipedia mission to judge but to offer information the most accurate possible. On this topic, I would agree with the guy whom asked a banner for better sourcing instead of deletion. On the yacht club page, the plantations and rum pages, all seems to exist with independent sourcing (press articles). So no need to delete those ones. On the Terry waterford mandeville page, the fact that he is a baronet mentionned in the debretts, also knight of some pontifical nobility, and having been at least mentioned in one article (the belize rum review about the sale of the plantation last october), this is sufficient in my opinion to meet wikipedia notability guidelines.Emil34567 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)— Emil34567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. ansh666 05:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morvarid Karimi[edit]

Morvarid Karimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deceased 45 year old assistant professor,WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Seems to be mainly sourced from obits. BEFORE doesn't show much more than obits in terms of coverage of her. She does however have a number of publications in peer-reviewed journals which per my assessment do not rise to WP:NPROF (but kept me from PRODing). Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cut a bunch of obituary language so that the page at least reads more like an encyclopedia article. This is not a decision to !vote either way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of secondary sources is disappointing, but the long list of scholarly publications makes it abundantly clear that this is someone who made a significant contribution to her field. Also, she was an assistant professor for 6 years, i.e. 6 years as a professional academic, and her institution Washington University School of Medicine is ranked 7th[9] in the research rankings of US medical schools.
    If Karimi had been a footballer, then per WP:NFOOTY the notability threshold would have been passed as soon as she had served even a few minutes as a professional academic at any university. In football terms, Karimi basically did 6 years in the premier league ... but because she was an academic rather than a a footballer, we are discussing her deletion. This is systemic bias in action: editors are being asked to assess this deletion proposal against a framework which is blatantly rigged in favour of popular culture, and rigged against the people who analyse and shape our world. So keep Karimi, because per WP:ABOUT, this is an encyclopedia; it is not, as NFOOTY implies, a fanzine where commercial sports get priority over scholars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: - actually PROF is quite lenient in terms of granting notability to academics with no sourcing covering them (beyond their body of work and positions) - opening an additional avenue besides GNG which may also grant notability. This individual is not close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria (the most relevant here would be NPROF 1 and 4 - widely cited journal papers or widely used textbooks). Granting notability to every assistant professor at a major top ranked institution would significantly widen the scope of NPROF (or narrow NFOOTY) and should be advanced in the guideline documentation - not in an individual AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: pendinq some consensus on how to resolve the notability guidelines' massive and blatant bias against in favour of sports, I see no policy reason to subject an academic to tests which would not be applied to kickers of an inflated leather pouch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note NPROF already counters sysyemic bias by confering notability where GNG does not. The arguement NFOOTY is too inclusive (I think the rationale there is due to footballers appearing in stats and game reports in media - which would typically mean coverage in a few newspapers per game at least) should be taken up with sports and gossip editors in the media (which confer SIGCOV on these individuals regardless of NFOOTY which just creates a presumption of notability), and at the relevant policy pages (or the village pump?) - not in an individual AfD on a non-football subject.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: the media does what it does, and as I'm sure you guessed, I'm not interested in discussions with thousands of sports desks. NFOOTY is in practice used to keep footballers even when exhaustive checking shows that there is nothing on them beyond stats entries or a squad listing. Yes, in theory it's a rebuttable presumption ... but in practice it's an exemption from the SIGCOV requirement.
    And there's not much point discussing NFOOTY , 'cos the sports fans who dominate en.wp's editorial demographic turn up in enough numbers to protect their loophole. So best to just apply the same logic to more encyclopedic topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets neither WP:PROF nor the GNG. No particularly significant publications, and all of them in large groups of which she was a junior member. Additionally, the overpersonal tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article--even after the editing. . I don't see what NSPORTS has to do with the issue. In practice, we have different standards in different fields. "Professional" does not mean the same thing, either: any physician is a professional, most people who play football are amateurs. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 07:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NEXIST given the number of published works in peer-reviewed academic journals. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Publishing your own work (in this case as a junior co-author mostly) does not satisfy NEXIST - a subject writing on other subjects is not writing about the subject itself, and in any event would be a WP:SELFSOURCE even if it were to contain tangential information on the subject. WP:PROF does provide an avenue, mainly based on being widely cited, for notability based on publications in academic journals (and elsewhere) - with the premise being that if a subject is cited pervasively, then the subject itself has become notable. In this particular case, the subject's work is not cited with great frequency.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 14 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtime[edit]

Watchtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written as an Advert. Sources are primary and fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (And for transparency reasons: Yes, I obviously am the page author) the issues addressed have been corrected, the publication is the only watch magazine available at newsstands in the US and regularely cited/quoted within horology-related content of the English version of Wikipedia, its only comparable Asian competitor Revolution_(magazine) does have a page. Thanks for reconsidering. Rruegger (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks secondary independent coverage establishing notability. Meatsgains(talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, insufficient coverage in secondary RSs. Also, a failure of WP:PROMO. Rentier (talk) 21:28, 11 February 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 Party for Democracy and Peace. MBisanz talk 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gukmin–Bareun party merger[edit]

Gukmin–Bareun party merger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is very notable event in Korea UnifyKorea (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: I believe the person who started the AfD wanted to keep the article, instead of deleting it. However, I am voting for delete on the article. Political parties merge, de-merge, die, and get reborn all the time in South Korea. There have been at least three incarnations of a "Democratic Party" there, and the former ruling party has changed its name at least three times. These are par for the course, it seems, for South Korean politics, and we can deal with the issue in the article for the merged party in the future. This article is non-notable, in the grand scheme of things, and does not deserve a separate article. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 18:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tessaro[edit]

Chris Tessaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. The article is a grab-bag of (unsourced) facts, none of which suggest that any SNG is met. The best claim of notability is hosting a radio show on poker, but I can't find coverage of the show, only mentions in bios in blog posts like [10]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources aren't impossible to find such as here, just search the name and add something related from the text, I think that the author simply forgot to add references. I will admit that he's not the most notable person but he does (barely) pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no reliable sources since 2009? "Forgetting to add references" is a new one. Thanks Rhadow (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles should not sit around for 9 years without sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 12 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SK Lavender Heights[edit]

SK Lavender Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary schools are generally not notable, and there is no reason to believe this one is; the one reference is a directory listing that only proves the school's existence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no indication of notability. Rhadow (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits are mostly directory listings or social media. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:38, 13 February 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 as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Leimberg[edit]

Stephan Leimberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. He appears to be most prominent as an author, but I don't see a case that WP:NAUTHOR is met. Independent references only claim that he was once quoted in an article in a notable publication. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Hesch[edit]

Jerome Hesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular claim of notability for this attorney, and no significant secondary references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional biography. There might be some ntoability, but not enough to overcome the promotionalism , which is a more serious problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mere PROMO for a nonnotable tax expert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 17 February 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. ansh666 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gassman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alan Gassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:MILL attorney and self-published author, with no other notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- appears to be an autobiographical promotion of books, none of which is supported by a review. Rhadow (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing that stands out for stand alone article. Trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not Martindale-Hubbell, either. Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mere PROMO for a non-notable estate planning attorney who publishes non-notable advice books on estate planning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 17 February 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. Merge can be discussed on talk page if you still want to pursue that; otherwise, consensus is that it meets GNG. ansh666 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Powers Initiative[edit]

Middle Powers Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged with {{COI}}* for over ten years. Perhaps, if no-one has cleaned it up in all that time, we should to admit no one cares enough to have this on Wikipedia?

* Although for all that time, without the required statement of the supposed on-neutrality on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Global Security Institute. Contributor apathy isn't a reason for deletion, but I don't see significant independent coverage of the group or its actions (this interview is the best I found). The Google News search results are largely situations where it is used as a resume-filler. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve - This search returns a lot of different pages which I only skimmed.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apathy is not grounds for deletion. (WP:WHOCARES) Seems to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass GNG in my BEFORE. Fairly stubby as it is - cleaning up the COI tag shouldn't be too difficult, and while somewhat promotional it isn't egregiously so.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 13 February 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. ansh666 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Finkel (author and business coach)[edit]

David Finkel (author and business coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person; none of the coverage is substantially about him. Receiving a bronze medal in the Pan-American games is not a reasonable claim of notability for someone who appears to promote get-rich-quick books for a living. Not to be confused with the MacArthur Fellow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another non-notable "business coach".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional biography, and therefore not content for an encyclopedia . ` DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE If you delete this page then you should delete all similar pages for example Tony Robbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.115.239 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2018‎
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There are a number of sources presented, and clearly the subject meets WP:V, but the consensus here is that the sources are mostly low-quality (blogs, etc) and/or simple mentions. There is not the depth of coverage in high-quality WP:RS to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks Susak[edit]

Aleks Susak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains(talk) 17:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Aleks Susak is a well known designer in Canada. Her clothing is worn by many local celebrities. Hope this helps. Abonzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Abonzz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huffington Post is not a reliable source. The fact that there are a couple articles that mention her in one sentence of the article is of no help whatsoever. See WP:GNG. She's not notable. Also, please disclose any connection you may have to her.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post has won a Pulitzer so is it possible to explain why it isn't reliable? Couldn't the amount of times the clothes are seen in magazines, etc be counted as notability? And zero connection to subject. Thanks Abonzz
Please sign your posts, you can read about how to do it here. Also, if you want to write articles that "stick", you need to understand reliable sources and notability. Basically there have to be published independent stories that are in-depth. For this person, the reporting is all very minor name checking, so she fails the notability test. It's your responsibility to read and understand those policies. Arguing every single little statement by other editors will get you nowhere as you clearly have not read and understood those policies.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely not seeing where there's been a Huffington Post source added to this article at all — and I've checked the edit history as well, so it's not that it got added and then removed, but rather it's that if you intended to add a Huffington Post citation you forgot to actually do it. At any rate, The Huffington Post is kind of a borderline source — it's more reliable than the average Blogspot blog, so it can be used for some additional confirmation of facts, but its content still consists principally of bloggers who are given latitude to write about anything or anybody they want to, so it's not a source that could carry notability all on its own if it were the best source on offer. So, in a nutshell, we'd need to actually see the HuffPo source before we could evaluate how much it helps. And neither The Globe and Mail nor La Presse is helping, either, because both articles just namecheck Aleks Susak's existence within coverage of Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, and neither of them is about Aleks Susak. Passing GNG requires media coverage in which Susak is substantively the subject of the source, not just media coverage of other people which happens to passingly mention that Susak exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete DeleteNumerous sources only mention her in one sentence. Entirely lacks in-depth coverage required for notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure of notability guidelines is not a valid reason for speedy deletion per point 5 of WP:NOTCSD. LinguistunEinsuno 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are! I was mixing up the "speedy k*ep" language of AfD's with the speedy del*te language.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be fanpage. No real RS. Agricola44 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Text was originally added to establish notability. Is it possible to point out exactly what makes it sound like a fanpage so changes can be made? Thanks Abonzz
Please sign your posts, you can read about how to do it here.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has received significant coverage from secondary sources.[1][2] I noticed sometimes her name is spelled "Alex Susak." Lonehexagon (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long back and forth between two users
Those are not significant coverage. The first is an interview (not WP:RS( and the second is two paragraphs in total.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that one of the sources includes an interview, but that is not the full article. Both sources include significant discussion about her. According to WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Lonehexagon (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the entirety of what you are referring to as "significant coverage" in the interview article in Urbanology:

"Pattern, colour and bold prints are the driving force behind up and coming designer Aleks Susak’s eclectic and sophisticated collections. Transitioning from marketing to fashion design was simple for the former model. After all, her mother Mila is an artist and was able to assist her creative visions along the way. With having years of experience working in the fashion and television industry to her advantage, as well as a unique personal sense of style, Susak channeled her inner fashionista into creating a collection for the sophisticated and fashion-conscious woman. Debuting her official self-titled clothing line with her Spring/Summer 2015 collection, the budding designer takes on the androgyny of the peacock and gentleness of the butterfly to mold her bright and daring pieces."

and here's the other source you say is significant:

"Elegant, feminine, and chic – this is what Canadian womenswear designer Aleks Susak‘s Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is. Sophisticated and graceful styles, glamorous and fashionable looks, tasteful combinations were presented on the runway at the Windsor Arms Hotel this September. European national wear inspired Aleks to create these looks, making hand-embroidered components on select collection pieces a central feature. As she states, ‘every collection strives to provide a fresh, modern and feminine take on dressing the modern woman‘.

Famous for her hand-painted silk garments, Aleks Susak has gained popularity among top Canadian celebrities and public figures. Helping women express their individuality and femininity, Aleks creates timeless pieces, experimenting with different fabrics and incorporating artistic touches, which are always common themes in every collection – whether pieces are hand-painted, hand-embroidered, or other. Her collections feature ‘the full spectrum of colours, and each colour stands out on its own, especially when accentuated by a particular cut or model‘.

Though designing clothes is what Aleks loves to do, she is also excited about ‘branching out into accessories‘. This will be a whole new level for the brand, and we cannot wait to see it!"

104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Both those cases are more than a trivial mention, and she is the main topic of the source material. The complete articles also include an interview and dozens of pictures of her designs. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. Two paragraphs about how she helps "women express their individuality and femininity" is the definition of trivial (as in lacking substance) coverage. Interviews and photographs are also not reliable sources. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is a clothing designer. The coverage is about how she designs clothing. When you say her coverage "is the definition of trivial" I feel this may be coming from a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rationale as opposed to a close read of the Wikipedia guidelines. If you look at WP:SIGCOV, an example of trivial coverage is this: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The coverage here is specifically about Susak and her work, and contains far more than a trivial mention of her. Lonehexagon (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding SIGCOV. The example they give there is "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." The material above is likewise trivial as it imparts a trivial amount of information about the designer. it does not say much more than the fact that she designs dresses. That's trivial coverage, lacking depth etc. Everything you have brought up as evidence of RS is incorrect, so let's agree to disagree.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could hat this exchange it would probably be useful to other readers.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to disagree, but I would like to point out the facts that were stated in those articles, which I believe amount to significant coverage for a designer:
Susak is a Canadian fashion designer who used to be a model. Her mother Mila is an artist and helps her with design. Before becoming a designer she had years of experience working in the fashion and television industry. Her clothes target "sophisticated and fashion-conscious woman" and have been worn by public figures and celebrities. She is known for hand-painting and hand-embroidering her clothing. She has recently announced she will start making accessaries in addition to clothes.
Career
Susak's first clothing line was a self-titled Spring/Summer 2015 clothing collection which features androgyny, with patterns and bright colors that are reminiscent of a butterfly or peacock. Her Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is based on "European national wear" and has been called "Elegant, feminine, and chic" and was presented on the runway at the Windsor Arms Hotel in September 2017. Her previous collections were highly regarded for using painted silk, and a central feature of the Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is hand-embroidered components. The article then goes on to showcase her work. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://urbanologymag.com/aleks-susak-model-turned-designer/
  2. ^ http://www.beyondfashionmagazine.com/fashion/artistic-touches-full-spectrum-colours-aleks-susaks-fw17-18-collection/
  3. ^ http://fusia.ca/aleks-susak-fallwinter-2017-2018-collection/
  4. ^ https://vitaandmoda.com/2014/11/28/emerging-designer-to-watch-aleks-susak/
  5. ^ http://www.fashionscissors.net/2014/11/aleks-susak-fashion-show.html
Those are extremely poor sources. I encourage you to have a look at WP:RS. The first Fusia source is copied from Wikipedia. The second Vitaandmoda source is a blog, (non-RS) and the third is a single person publishing a web page, aka a blog. See the contact page where she says "If you have any questions, ideas, suggestions, job offers or even advice please contact me at xyz@ somethign com" As an example, a set of reliable sources would be a profile in the Toronto Star, another in the Globe and Mail, and one or two others. That would cut it, but all we have for this person is very minor mentions. Minor=trivial. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to disagree. I feel like it's well-established that she's notable as a designer with enough coverage to create an article about her. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fashion designers are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but the sources being shown here are not reliable ones for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG: they are blogs and a piddling Canadian National Enquirer knockoff, not reputable media outlets that count as reliable sources for Wikipedia content. And it's not enough to just assert that she's recognized as a major designer, either — the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage available about her has to attest to her purported majorness. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New sources were added to the Susak page : Canadian Living magazine, LZXY magazine and Toronto City Life. Here is the Huffington Post article that begins with a description of the Susak outfit: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/02/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-vancouver-pride_n_11305254.html Thanks Abonzz (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Huffington Post article definitely doesn't assist notability, then. It's not about Aleks Susak, but merely mentions Aleks Susak in the process of being about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau — which cuts no ice toward making Aleks Susak notable. And none of the other new sources you've added to the article help either — City Life and LXRY are blogs, not reliable or notability-supporting sources, and the Canadian Living piece is, yet again, a mere mention of Aleks Susak's existence in a blurb about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. None of these sources are showing what's required — as I already said, we're not looking for coverage of other people which happens to mention Aleks Susak's name, we're looking for coverage about Aleks Susak herself. She has to be the subject of a source, not just a name present in sources about other subjects, before that source assists in demonstrating her notability, and those sources have to be reliable media outlets and not blogs — so we're still at exactly zero notability-assisting sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable enough for inclusion. Featured in magazine and news articles.--Zoupan 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being "featured in" magazine and news articles is not a notability pass. Being the subject of newspaper and magazine articles is what's required, and none of the sources being shown here are doing that. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 19 February 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - articles with content merged to other articles cannot be deleted, merge proposals need to be added to article talk pages. Article can be redirected to merge target. Michig (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avenged Sevenfold members[edit]

List of Avenged Sevenfold members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge discussion, all necessary content has been moved to the main article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.@4TheWynne: What exactly are you looking for here? If the content has been merged, we can't delete this, it would need to be redirected to the band article. If You're proposing a merge here, this is the wrong venue. --Michig (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise redirecting (not deleting) was the way to go – sorry about that one. Feel free to close. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:30, 11 February 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 Social immunity. North America1000 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Immunity[edit]

Social Immunity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to duplicate Social immunity Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all the content to Social immunity. Let an interested editor straighten it out. Social Immunity is not a proper noun. Don't even bother with a REDIRECT, just delete it. Rhadow (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Social immunity, which provides more detailed coverage supported by more citations. However, the current article contains some material not covered there, so a careful merger with restructuring will be required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I know how the filing editor(s) must feel. scope_creep (talk) 10:33, 15 February 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. ansh666 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Ontario Mining Cup[edit]

2017 Ontario Mining Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication or evidence that the various years' events of this tournament are notable. Nominating both 2017 Ontario Mining Cup and 2018 Ontario Mining Cup for deletion. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC) As noted above, I am also nominating the following related page :[reply]

2018 Ontario Mining Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both neither event passes WP:GNG. A mention at the parent article is sufficient. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NEVENT are met. Even the coverage at the parent article is weak. Papaursa (talk) 02:13, 12 February 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. North America1000 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillion Harper[edit]

Dillion Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails gng and pornbio. Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO without significant award wins. Fails WP:BASIC without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The references in the article are not reliable. Independent searching yields only trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the clearly spelled out criteria for notability in this profession. As it is those criteria are overly broad and generally considered to be one of the weakest parts of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: I think you got this criteria confused with WP:NSPORTS. I always think sports/athlete criteria is overly broad, and one of the weakest of enwiki. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No I did not. Pornographic biography overbroad criteria have regularly been attacked as a major sign of how anti-women Wikipedia is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (vote deleted)
*The Nightmoves Award falls short of the "well-known and significant industry award" criterion for WP:PORNBIO and the win lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though I somewhat like her, especially her POV videos; she fails WP:PORNBIO, and unfortunately WP:GNG as well. Maybe in the future. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: bwahaha! Your response made my day ma man! On a serious note, she looks very cute. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Cerutti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guillaume Cerutti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no sources. Was nominated a year ago, with few sources. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Note:Article now has now being rebuilt with new references by User:Zigzig20s. Please take this into account. scope_creep (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: Would you like to withdraw your nomination please? Your rationale for deleting it appears to be null now.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: Thanks. Could you please remove the tag from the article too?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:25, 11 February 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) 12:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combative anatomy[edit]

Combative anatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced speculation Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all original research. Rhadow (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MT TrainDiscuss 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR without even an attempt at sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just weird and not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a topic here--folks do study anatomy in the martial arts to improve training and fighting techniques. But the current article is an OR essay with no sourcing. I don't see anything to salvage. Hence delete, with no prejudice to writing a proper article on this sort of topic. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found on Google apart from self defense blogs and posts talking very loosely about the term. No WP:RS that I can immediately see to demonstrate notability as a term of study. Article is WP:OR. Probable Neologism? Nothing links here from mainspace apart from a redirect from Combative Anatomy. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 15 February 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 List of Highschool of the Dead characters. While copying from Wikia isn't exactly a copyvio (it has the same cc-by-sa license), an unattributed one is. ansh666 00:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Marikawa[edit]

Shizuka Marikawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and in universe description with no real live relevance. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Shizuka Marikawa is one of the main characters. So it should have it's own article.

Look at these

Main characters and secondary characters should have their own article. Rudra Tenio Chakraborty (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of article has been blocked for disruptive editing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Highschool of the Dead characters where the character is sufficiently described. This character has no independent notability from the series as with the Death Note characters you listed. I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) If you have news articles that critique this particular character, then please present them here. Also there hasn't been any new chapters or spinoff stories for HOTD to suggest that she or any of the other HOTD characters, would become any more notable than being part of that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as foundational copyvio of highschool-of-the-dead.wikia.com: see copyvio report. Beyond that, does not meet notability guidelines for finctional elements. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Highschool of the Dead characters. No notability outside of the series; lacks independent real-world coverage. This would have been a straight redirect instead of a delete/redirect if it weren't for the fact that this is mostly an unattributed copy of a Wikia page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a main chracter does not make one notable, having coverage outside that production does. Such as citations that mention the cultural impact of the character, not just mentions in plot summaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:A&M/CHARACTER, no notability shown outside of the in-universe info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with redirecting the page to List of Highschool of the Dead characters per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Highschool of the Dead characters#Shizuka Marikawa. Fails WP:GNC nor does it meet any other inclusion critiera for standalone articles. Only one primary source to support the entire article with no third-party sources cited. Do to the copyvio, the article should be purged before it is redirected. —Farix (t | c) 12:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Gillani[edit]

Rubina Gillani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in coverage to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing shows why she would be considered a notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources, taken together suggest notability, and they include in-depth here and a paragraph here and interview here and coverage here and a mention here and a brief mention here and a mention here and some coverage here (mentioning one of her speeches). Here is her article in a medical journal. Overall I think the sources add to a keeper (maybe weak keep but I'm leaning toward regular keep) even though the current state of the article is rather bloated and patchwork; she's a significant player in the eye-health medical world of Pakistan. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tomwsulcer. Mar4d (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because she is a representative then such kind of coverage will exist. We need coverage which discusses the individual so we can have an encyclopedic entry. Störm (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh--Trivial name-mentions do not make a subject pass GNG.But, still not convinced enough to cast a !vote either side.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional biography "In February 2012, Gillani visited the Ophthalmology Department of the Khyber Teaching Hospital " no actual accomplishments. promotionalism is a a even more important reason for deletion than dubious notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tomwsulcer. The article is well-sourced and there is substantial coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage to easily satisfy GNG. In addition to the citations in her article, I saw her work was extensively discussed in a book.[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Schwartz[edit]

Dana Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First ref is her own website. 2nd and 3rd refs are interviews. 4th one is a commercial catalog. Therefore non notable bio. Mar11 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE. Per WP:INTERVIEW, "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." I removed the commercial link and replaced it with a pair of book reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - straightforward choice: early-career writer but tons of interviews, profiles and book reviews. Blythwood (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per improvements done since nomination.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her sources include several examples of significant in-depth coverage over her career, and she has also written two noteworthy books. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SIGCOV exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 17 February 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. ansh666 00:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandone Francis[edit]

Brandone Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable university basketball player. Fails the specific notability criteria for basketball players. Does not otherwise meet the basic notability criteria for sportspeople, notability guideline for people, or the general notability guideline. Due diligence reveals only superficial or glancing mentions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. University student is unlikely to be notable. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding quite a bit of coverage. Significant player on the the top team in the Big 12 and a top 10 team in the country. Coverage of player's background. Controbuted to Texas Tech's first win over a ranked opponent on home court. They are 15-0 at home. Certainly premature. Let's at least see how Jr. Season plays out. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added a bunch of sources and improved the article. Dammit_steve (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing sufficient sources that I would call independent and/or significant. Lots of short blurbs, game reports, etc that aren’t in depth about the subject and lots of stories from fan sites and school athletic pages. A case of WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete routine coverage that does not rise to the level of showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NSPORT & significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is in passing and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS and the coverage seems typical for any player at a major college program. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Ali Isani[edit]

Usman Ali Isani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear CV. VC of a local university. Fails WP:NPROF test. Störm (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-Passes NACADEMIC, IMO.DGG, what's our default take on VCs of public universities? Chancellors are no-brainers but not so sure about VC.~ Winged BladesGodric 05:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In a UK oriented system, VC is almost always the effective head of the university, and the Chancellor is an honorary position. All or almost all Indian and Pakistani universities follow the UK pattern This can usually be verified by determining who the chancellor is. In this case, In this case, it's apparent the spouse of the founder, Hunaid Lakhani, who was a Pakistani businessman, not an academic. . DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Reads like a CV but could be improved.Branchofpine, Have a chat, My edits 10:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vice-chancellor of a significant university in Pakistan, where it means the top academic officer at the university, is a pass of WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Kang[edit]

M. J. Kang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor performer and playwright. Most Dora Award winners do not have their own articles. Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP i have cited few reliable references and now the article fulfill criteria as per Wikipedia guidelines Truembp (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing indicated the subject meets the notability guidelines for actors.02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I grant that nothing here is a particularly strong WP:NACTOR pass as JPL points out just above me, but that completely misses the point: what she does have is a credible WP:NAUTHOR pass as a playwright. Dora nominations (the exact literal equivalent of a Tony Award, once you realize that "they're less notable just because I've never heard of them" is not a thing) do count as a potentially valid notability claim — the thing being, just as with many film awards, that the public-face categories (actors, directors and writers) are generally much more likely to have quality reliable source coverage about them than the behind-the-scenes ones (lighting, costume design, etc.) do. So it's not exactly true that "most Dora winners don't have articles" — the truth is that it depends on the category, just the same way as the actors and directors and screenwriters in a Genie Award or Canadian Screen Award article are much more likely to actually be blue links than the costume designers and cinematographers are. The actors and playwrights from a Dora nominations list are more likely to have Wikipedia articles as a rule, and for any class of topic there's always a distinction between whether similar people do have articles or not and whether they can have articles or not — we're missing articles about many members of the Parliament of Ghana and the Maine House of Representatives, too — but that doesn't mean they're not notable, it just means people haven't gotten around to getting them finished yet. Kang gets more than enough hits on a ProQuest search to repair this, as well: the sourcing problems here have less to do with coverage not existing, because it does, and more to do with the fact that she appears to have taken a hiatus during the very time when we were starting to get stricter about sourcing articles properly. So she's not non-notable, she was just "out of sight, out of mind" for a while. This is entirely repairable, I'll take a stab at it right now. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been substantially improved since nomination and has references to reliable sources including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post and so passes WP:GNG. Notable awards and reviews also pass WP:CREATIVE " has received significant critical attention". Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per these edits. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added links from some of the Toronto Star citations to their newspaper archives so you can see some of the source text. Appears to have significant coverage satisfying GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, that's not actually a useful thing to do. If we can't provide a link to the entire text of an article, then there's no value in providing a link to a mere abstract of it. Wikipedia has no requirement whatsoever that our sources actually have to be web-accessible at all — we are allowed to cite print-only content, such as paper or microfilm copies of newspapers or magazines or books, so we should only provide a convenience URL if one exists for the complete text of the source. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Club[edit]

Honor Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence that it is yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Granted, I'm the one who just created it, but ROH just officially announced it two days ago. Give it some time to build up, construct it similar to WWE Network's page. Jgera5 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I can understand the WP:TOOSOON arguments. This is arguably the second largest promotion in the US and a major platform for them. If this were deleted it would only be recreated in a few weeks. - GalatzTalk 14:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft-ify - WP:TOOSOON. So the information is not lost. It can be moved back to article space when it passes WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time as multiple, reliable, independent mainstream news sources cover this product which does not yet even have a launch date. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article will expand in time but there's enough out there right now to pass GNG.[12][13][14][15]LM2000 (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Seems to meet the criteria for Speedy keep as per #2 and/or #3. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page does not explain why this topic is notable, nor does it cite any sources. The references tag currently on the page was set up over a decade, and still isn't resolved. Winmaster123 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Winmaster123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frivolous nomination by a suspicious new account. One might be forgiven for having April 2013 flashbacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinged here. Like everything Harvard-related it's probably got plenty of coverage, but I'm on mobile for much of today so I'm gonna toss this to David Epstein for a cross-country perspective. EEng 12:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably EEng meant User:David Eppstein. (Why hasn't User:David Epstein been UN-blocked, by the way? I guess back in 2007 the username creation filter didn't prevent names that were that similar to existing users...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia Taylor[edit]

Octavia Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this should be a redirect to Zachary Taylor. As she had such a short life, I think coverage of her would best be contained to coverage in her parents' respective pages per WP:NOPAGE. Enwebb (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Nothing in this article that is not in the Zachary Taylor article. I don't even see the pint of a redirect. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and the category (children of the presidents of the US) is a limited category more specific than GNG. Note that Wikipedia generally also includes articles on the children of the Kings of Great Britain.Ryoung122 02:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. RS coverage sufficient for pre-electronic age bio. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Short-lived but notable because of her influence on her parents' lives. And I acknowledge WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a valid argument for inclusion, but, nonetheless....Patrick Bouvier Kennedy only lived a few days - he has a WP article, and Doud Eisenhower, Eliza Garfield, and Edward Baker Lincoln, all of whom died at 3 years of age, also have articles. Shearonink (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She died at 4 long before her father was president. Anything worth saying about her can be said in the article on her father. Not all children of presidents are default notable. We lack articles on President Obama's daughters, we have even less reason to have an article on Octavia Taylor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shearonink. Also, I feel that the content is much more relevant here than it would be on Zachary Taylor's page. Davey2116 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Kuban[edit]

Glen Kuban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am a little puzzled how this computer programmer could be considered notable DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the New York Times article has many paragraphs about this subject and that is just one example of the coverage. Clesrly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuban was a key figure debunking the "humans walked with dinosaurs" crank theory pushed by some creationists. Two time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist John Noble Wilford devoted twelve paragraphs to Kuban and his meticulous research in the New York Times. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously enough, the NYT story contradicts the WP article: it says he did convince some of the creationists that that particular piece of evidence was useless. It also says, which our article does not, that this study was the key interpretation of the tracks. Nice example of how a poorly written article can fail to show something is significance -it seemed so insignificant I omitted to actually read the reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Kuban tried unsuccessfully to convince creationists that the tracks weren't human in the article isn't sourced to the NYT article, but rather to this article in Creation/Evolution, which states, "Kuban tried in vain to have creationists view these newly cleaned and mapped trails that constitute their most-cited pieces of evidence for human and dinosaur contemporaneity." This is consistent with the text in the article now, which says, "After cleaning and mapping the trails during his field work there, he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince creationists to look at them." I would also like to politely suggest that anyone planning on nominating an article for deletion *cough* DGG *cough* ensure that they follow WP:BEFORE before doing so. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article you're describing is from the NCSE, an affiliate of AAAS. That is, this isn't some random blog; it's a notable publication, and Kuban is featured prominently in the story line. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- significant researcher in a narrow field; the coverage is sufficient for a short article as is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 15 February 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) 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayame Ikehata[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ayame Ikehata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as no consensus in 2008. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable porno actress, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 02:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our current, and still far too inclusive, notability guidelines for this profession.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 February 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 Procedural close. The AfD format was royally screwed up, can the original nominator please nominate each article for deletion again individually? (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Revere McFadden[edit]

David Revere McFadden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Promotional / Conflict of interest: Articles are a promotion created in 2008 and edited by an account named for the museum MADMuseum (talk · contribs), as well as a person one of the articles is about David mcfadden (talk · contribs). MADMuseum (talk · contribs) seems to have been only created to add content to MADmuseum related articles. Article is heavily subject to conflicts of interest per WP:CONFLICT, as people working for the museum are behind these edits.
  • Non-notable: There seems to be no reasons for these articles, and if it were not by edits from the former user, no articles would link to them (WP:NOTABILITY).
  • Lack of sources: Do not have any high quality sources to show it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. (WP:SOURCES)

I propose delete due to the above reasons. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [promotional articles created by colleagues / the museum and lack of sources and notability. They act like advertisements.]:[reply]

Holly Hotchner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lowery Stokes Sims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul J. Smith (arts administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE any deletion of Lowery Stokes Sims an important, notable museum curator who was assistant curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for many years...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:, In the case of Lowery Stokes Sims this article is supported by 4 (four) unrelated sources which is comparable to that of notable sportspeople. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:, and in the case of David Revere McFadden it seems that the concerned person has inserted a list of their own publications which is in fact unsourced, but prior to that they probably had little knowledge that an article about them existed here on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin this Afd would appear to be royally messed up, as it is linked to from two Afd's (David Revere McFadden and Lowery Stokes Sims), unkless i am missing something that connects the two. The wikicode on Lowery Stokes Sims appears to be the source of the problem.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these individuals have enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do these four articles not have separate AfDs? It is impossible to discuss four articles here: if we find (for example) 2 notable and 2 not, how are we to address this? This will also make archiving difficult. Each article should have its own AfD page where we can discuss and !vote on that article alone without considering the other three.
Also, I would like to remind the nominator that conflict of interest and being promotional are not reasons for deletion unless there is a copyright violation. If there is a COI that can be dealt with separately and promotional text can be edited. Likewise, there being "no reason" for an article is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly doesn't speak to notability issues. As for sources, I would like to know what the nominator means by "high quality" as this is vague and doesn't really address WP:NOTE. We need to go by WP:GNG here and this needlessly complicated 4-in-1 AfD isn't really addressing this. Note to closing admin: I would like to ask that this AfD/these AfDs be kept open beyond the usual time limit as it requires more time to go through all of this to make an assessment.
Finally, if anyone is able to migrate the three other articles to separate AFDs that would be useful. The three other AfDs can be linked here if the nominator feels there is a connection (such as article creator) but they should be addressed individually. freshacconci (✉) 16:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to say why it is "unsuitable". Just saying delete/unsuitable is of no effect.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Gokunks Close this, and renominate the articles individually, so a vigourous discussion can be made, if needed, in each. What a mess dude!! scope_creep (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY. This is a disaster AfD that should be closed and renominated individually, ASAP.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG yes close and start again. One by one. This is a mess.--Theredproject (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experimentalfältet[edit]

Experimentalfältet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn -- Reference (in Swedish, which I cannot read) supplied. This article is about a "field for experiments". The title is not meaningful in English. The article has been unreferenced since 2011. A PROD was reverted with the explanation that the building is notable. There are, apparently, references in Swedish, but no inline citation was provided. If the Frederick Bloom House is indeed notable, then the article should be MOVEed and the text recast to describe the house, and not the agricultural research garden Rhadow (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a listed historic site (including buildings) in a European capital city = notable, and there are many good sources, including maps showing the exact extent of the site, which is more than a building (it was me that removed the PROD notice, and I apologise for referring to it as a "building" in the edit summary, when it is actually a whole area; I was trying to be succinct but ended up being misleading). Since this is a Swedish listed site, the sources are in Swedish: this is not a reason to delete the article. There are indeed no inline citations at present, and the article is tagged to that effect: this is also not a reason to delete it. The nom is being v literal-minded about the name. It is called Experimentalfältet for historical reasons (in the same sort of way as, for example, the Haymarket or Fetter Lane in London, where there are now neither hay nor fetters), and we wouldn't translate this to "field of experiment" any more than we would translate "Unter den Linden" or " Champs Elysees" into their English equivalents.Eustachiusz (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looking at the "Sources" section one might get the idea that that's the "External links" section which could be a sign that the author of the subject isn't that familiar with WP:PROSE and how to properly source, but any more experienced editor can simply move those referenced inline and the subject matter will appear more notable, so I have an idea that this article is only here because of the (almost deceptive) way that it's sourced. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case somebody wants to improve the article to the satisfaction of the nominator, there is this 408-page monograph on the subject from 2000 (Ulrich Lange: Experimentalfältet : Kungl. Lantbruksakademiens experiment- och försöksverksamhet på norra Djurgården i Stockholm 1816-1907), which is likely to have references to older publications. From that link there is a further link to a PDF with an English-language abstract. It has been reviewed here and here. The LIBRIS keywords indicate that this book from the same year discusses the Experimentalfältet as well. --Hegvald (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful reference. I've added this article to my To Do list, and will improve it to my own satisfaction, rather than that of the nomr.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established per above discussion confirming very subatantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability per references. Per Historic site. BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 11 February 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) 07:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Girl of the Year[edit]

Cyber Girl of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate collection of information and significant RS coverage not found. The honour listed is not significant and well-known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). All recipients are non-notable, so the article does not work as a list either.

The page has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club, and then restored via DVR. However, all articles that were part of the DVR have since been deleted. This is the lone hold-out and should be deleted as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 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. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=t16MqnuKW1IC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22Rubina+Gillani%22+pakistan&source=bl&ots=rXPVhwr7u3&sig=hnQtCZMSn8bua3DfogZ3lpsFxg4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZyJWjzajZAhWqgFQKHXpMBeYQ6AEIZTAN#v=onepage&q=%22Rubina%20Gillani%22%20pakistan&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_11&oldid=1142616676"