Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The Keeps participants aren't exactly the most forceful out there, but I find their arguments convincing nonetheless. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dubeau[edit]

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

The author's argument is that being the acting commissioner of the RCMP is an automatic notability pass. There is no WP:PAG that supports that, and the press coverage and other sourcing on this guy is meager at best. Most of the sources that mention him speak of him in connection to the controversy of his predecessor leaving office. Does not meet WP:NPOL (not even sure that applies, as this is supposedly the Canadian equivalent of a civil service job), does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As RoySmith said here, "One could make a reasonable argument that since we don't have a WP:NRCMP guideline, WP:MILPERSON might be a reasonable stand-in, in which case, "Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces" would apply here. Certainly, if we've got all the people in Category:American police chiefs, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP should qualify". I also believe that being Acting Commissioner should automatically make Dubeau as notable as Zachary Taylor Wood and Beverley Busson, both of whom held the position in the same effect. Althought Busson is listed on the RCMP site, Wood is not, and yet both have been granted their own articles, which I believe makes for a valid WP:Other stuff exists argument. Per these, I beleive the article should be kept. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One man's opinion is not a guideline, and you misquoted him. He is welcome to argue that position here if he likes. However, you have violated yet another policy by pinging him here. You are not allowed to WP:CANVAS. The simple fact is, police chiefs are seldom notable, and the ones that are usually are because they have either held an elected office that meets WP:NPOL or have held a major administrative police post (think chief of NYPD) for a long period. Keep in mind, this guy was never the head of the RCMP, he was the acting head. That is not a subtle difference. Also, if you had taken the time to read the guidelines for contributing to an AfD discussion, you'd see that WP:OSE is seldom a persuasive argument. John from Idegon (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That said, WP:OSE may be valid in this case, as I've stated above. Secondly, I apologize for apparently violating WP:CANVAS, however I was not aware that was in violation, nor was it my intent. Lastly, I don't beleive that I misquoted anyone, however my apologies if in some way I did. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, even if being the Acting Commissioner isn't enough to pass WP:NPOL, he has held post as Chief Human Resources Officer since 2011, which should hold some standing here in terms of a "Major Administrative Position". Fhsig13 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said elsewhere, the argument I made at DRV, cited above, was a relatively weak argument, but it doesn't take much to overturn a WP:A7. The bar is higher at AfD. I have not studied this enough to have formed an opinion I wish to express here, so I'm neutral in this AfD discussion. As for canvassing, that's kind of moot; I found this on my own. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and may barely pass WP:BASIC, just enough to avoid a speedy deletion. Most sources focus on the previous commissioner and the controversies this person was involved with. There's only one primary source in the article right now; it'd have to be completely re-written, and then - it'd be an article focused entirely on the controversies. However, WP:BLP requires high-quality sources on sensitive topics, so... No, cannot be rescued at the moment. byteflush _Talk 00:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it couldn't pass WP:ANYBIO on the first criterion? Being named the head of a national police force, even temporarily, IS a significant honor and was broadcast on Canadian news stations for several days following Comm. Paulson's retirement, making it well-known, in my opinion. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in my opinion, it's more of a duty; or a post. While it probably is an honor to serve as a head of RCMP, the word honor, from the context of WP:ANYBIO applies to something else. byteflush _Talk 00:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Might I inquire as to what you beleive it applies to, if not to such promotions? (I ask out of pure curiosity) Fhsig13 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem. =) From my PoV, it's a British CBE or higher honor, though I might be wrong on that one. Anyway, I don't think a personal feeling of being honored qualifies there. byteflush _Talk 01:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Gotcha. I can't say for sure what the definition of honor is in this case either, which to me begs the question of whether there is worth in disputing that particular point, but I'm not going to be the one to make that call. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course; it's on neither of us. That's why this page is here - we need input from editors here, on whether this particular article should be deleted or not. Policies and guidelines can be ambiguous at times, which is a part of the reason why we have these discussions. byteflush _Talk 01:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I guess now we wait. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his 9-month stint as (interim) head of the RCMP makes him notable in my opinion, however this article is thin as far as sourcing goes. The Toronto Star article is a nice start. PK T(alk) 12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:MILPERSON analogy seems to make sense. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree with the argument that his position as interim leader of the RCMP makes him inherently notable (though it would be enough to survive an A7). I don't see significant coverage about this person to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You forget that we can't cite television coverage. Comm. Paulson's retirement, and the inherent news of Dubeau replacing him was broadcast widely on Canadian television stations, such as Global News and CTV News Channel (Canada) in the month that followed these events. So, in my opinion, he has received broad media coverage, coupled with the news articles and website source provided, to pass WP:GNG. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the things that WP:RS requires is for sources to be WP:PUBLISHED, but this doesn't only mean "print media" or "online media". So, l'm pretty sure TV coverage can be cited as explained in WP:CITEHOW#Film, television, or video recordings and WP:SAYWHERE. There are various templates you can use to do this such as Template:Cite episode or Template:Cite AV media; however, if you're going to provide a link to something found online to make assessment of the source easier, please be aware of WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER. You can use this AfD's talk page (see the "Talk" tab at the top) as a place to go into more detail about a particular source. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for that information, it will go a long ways in terms of sourcing. I will start looking into the possible facets of doing so immediately, however, finding out exactly what days the stories aired on the various newcasts may be impossible, or at the least, quite hard to do, given the resources available. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You might try searching on official websites of new organizations, etc. since they often post video content. YouTube is sometimes OK, but you need to be aware of WP:YOUTUBE and once again stick to official channels. Lots of people upload content to YouTube (old news boradcasts, etc.) that they don't own the copyright on. YouTube's standard license might make it seem as if this content is OK for Wikipedia's purposes, but most of the time it's not. You don't need to provide a link to any specific video found online, but you should try and be as specific about the content you're citing as possible so that it can be properly assessed. You should also try to read/see the content yourself and not just assume it says what others claim it is saying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am seriously unimpressed with the referencing and available coverage found so far. However, the argument that a man who was the head of one of the world's crack national law enforcement agencies is not notable, mostly due to the fact that we haven't gotten around to writing a guideline yet, strikes me as kinda lame. Yes his position was "interim." But interim here was not a few days or weeks. It was nine months. This isn't the strongest !vote I've cast in an AfD, but I think the subject passes, if barely, what should be a reasonable standard for notability of persons in his field. [About that A7...sigh...] -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think we can extend SOLDIER(2) to this case - being 2nd in command / acting in command of a 20,000 man force (RCMP - all be it Canadian and mounted) - would apply. However, SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability - one can pass SOLDIER and still not meet GNG. I am not satisfied with the sourcing in the article, nor with what I dug up - e.g. - [1][2][3][4] - however I am convinced that this individual does has coverage, and I am willing to assume that given the significance of the position held that there probably is more coverage out there.Icewhiz (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few votes which strike me as "probably notable," but after a decent search the amount of coverage for this person does not pass WP:GNG. The Toronto Star articles are not significant, as they just mention him due to his interim position, and the position itself does not pass any notability presumption guidelines. I don't believe we can construct a quality article here and am concerned about the quality of the keep votes, none of which strike me as particularly firm. SportingFlyer talk 23:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commissioner would have been clearly notable , deputy commissioner probably not. But he was acting Commissioner for a;most a year--head of the RCMP for a considerable period. Regardless of the title being temporary, being head of the force is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest that even deputy commissioner of a national, very famous police force is notable enough to keep, let alone acting commissioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 31 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reeves (theologian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACADEMIC. Searches turned up nothing. Also potential COI. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject writes a lot, but lacks significant coverage in WP:RS. Possible route to notability is WP:NACADEMIC #6, but Union School of Theology is a tiny college with fewer than 200 students, so not a major academic institution. Bakazaka (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had considered your second point, but do agree with you. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't even see a feeble attempt at WP:GNG. Seafox289 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. I cannot find (with some difficulty) more than a handful of cites on GS. Too little, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 27 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's zombie[edit]

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

Complete lack of appearance in scholarly literature means this is fringe at best, and I can find no discussion of it as such. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources outside some fringe circles, agree with nom. byteflush _Talk 00:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits at all in Google Scholar either, suggesting that the cited sources are fringe. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked references 7 and 8, they do not mention any Maxwell Zombies. (3 I can not access online, 4-7 do not seem to be peer-reviewed, and I did not check them). Looks like a neologism.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero in Google Scholar. Zero in JSTOR. One use of the term in Google News but that is a Tripadvisor photo of a drink, presumably of that name. I even tried searching "Maxwell zombie" and got nothing. This is not a thing. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of recent (July-August 2018 issue of American Scientist: [5]by the same author. This is not accepted science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rec4062 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perilously close to a hoax. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 29 July 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. ansh 666 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Dabaghi[edit]

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

Most of the citations seem to be articles about Ashton Kutcher; it is likely more appropriate to redirect to that page. Fulbright recipients don't seem to be notable in and of themselves: "Fulbright Scholar" redirects to "Fulbright program." Fulbright program contains a list of already notable recipients, which would make it tautological to say receipt satisfies WP:NOTABLE on its own. None of the criteria of WP:Notability_(academics) are met, either.

The regional Forbes article is insufficient to satisfy WP:NOTABLE, as it is a list rather than a journalistic article. I.e. this could be proper citation, but is not in and of itself qualifying as notable. No other member of this list has an article solely based on their inclusion on the list, and only a handful have articles at all--if they do, the articles are for other reasons without mentioning this particular list. I don't see any other suggestions of notability to address.

The lack of citations in the infobox and personal data give me pause about the authorship of the article re: WP:BLPEDIT. If we deleted the unsourced personal info/material, the article might be a stub, or less. If inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted at all, a redirect to the "Other Work" section of the Ashton Kutcher article seems proper. DonGeiss (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC) (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the only two users to make edits to the article Davisj5525 and HJones2579 have only made edits related to this article. The format of the names is oddly similar. It seems likely that these accounts are a) affiliated, and b) were created only to make this article. DonGeiss (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 20:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Authorial suspicions aside, cited references are not independent, reliable sources offering significant coverage of the subject, and the magazine lists and scholarships are selective but not significant honors in the Wikipedia sense. Search finds more coverage of a company that seems to have attracted coverage only because Ashton Kutcher was involved, and an unfortunate story about a family member in which subject is mentioned in passing. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Notability is not inherited through association with a notable person. CoronaryKea (talk) 11:46, 26 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Cole[edit]

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

lack of notability. Reads like an advertisement/promotion. Do not see notable/academic reasons to have a WP article. MartinezMD (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 20:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable independent sources for the person, his technique, or his inventions. The court decision is not a secondary source, and the sanctions didn't receive significant coverage in independent sources, either. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:48, 30 July 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. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael del Rosario[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Has 1 source which is not about the subject. The article states he won awards, but there are no sources for this. In Asian Television Awards there is no mention of Batang Hitman or Del Rosario. » Shadowowl | talk 19:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article as per WP:BASIC, and finding no evidence that WP:FILMMAKER is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 20:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have had minor crew roles in a couple of films, both of which have articles, but even if the films themselves are notable, WP:NOTINHERITED still applies. That aside, the article is still very much promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:52, 27 July 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. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abimbola Ogunnowo[edit]

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

Article creator seem to be deperate about putting this article in mainspace, and from my 8 years experience here, desperation 70% of the time usually equate strong COI or paid editing, especially when you factor in that at best Ogunnowo is a C-class actress with no major impact in Nollywood. Being the third AFD in the last few months, it is clear that article creator has no respect for WP:CONSENSUS, as the references in this article does not seem to be significantly better than the previous version. My advice for the article creator is to wait till more independent coverage is published or is she gets lead roles in major films or when she wins a major award, however, if the article creator thinks the earlier deletion was done in error, then he should go through deletion review. Subject still falls short of inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a new inclusion from the previous versions, "Information Nigeria" named her as "one of the four Yoruba actresses who are experts in skin toning and brightening business"[3]. - this is just like saying TMZ listed top 5 Hollywood actresses that goes to the grocery store, both are insignificant when accessing notability.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major film "Ifejafunmi" she was the lead actor and this movie features likes of "Femi Branch" & "Mercy Aigbe Gentry" also note Yoruba actor's never got the type of attention they needed till around late 2000 also as you may know Africa Magic Yoruba is currently playing a big role in their industry, even the official Yoruba movie awards started in 2012 "Yoruba Movie Academy Awards" not everybody knows about that yet. Also as you may know due to her tribemark she lost a lot of role aside her first major role in "Ifejafunmi". Also she was nominated for a major award earlier last year "City People Entertainment Awards" also check Mercy Aigbe Gentry all the movies she acted being listed doesn't have a Wikipedia even if the movies are major Yoruba movies that how poor the Yoruba movie industry are, also most of the Yoruba movies I see on Wikipedia are around 2010/2011 but they are alot of top movies without Wikipedia because of no record of sales and no story on the media and nobody really focusing in the Yoruba movie industry till around. Also she was featured in Papa Ajasco and this is a reputable movie since 1996 to present still going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timi422 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also around 2015 Femi Adebayo was made special adviser to the Governor of Kwara State on Arts, Culture and Tourism to help the Yoruba movie industry grow, their movie industry is really poor alot of big names but can't be on Wikipedia due to poor system.--Timi422 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that generally English-Nollywood has a better online presence than Yoruba-Nollywood, I do not agree that there is a significant systematic bias towards actors/actresses that usually get lead roles in Yoruba films in comparison to their English counterparts. Category:Yoruba actresses has 83 articles, Category:Acressess in Yoruba cinema has 49 articles, Category:Yoruba actors has 96 articles, Category:Male actors in Yoruba cinema has 58 articles. The numbers seem like a good representation to me. I also went through the articles in the categories and most of those listed became noble virtue of their contribution to Yoruba cinema. If this was a Yoruba film article then your reasoning would have been appropriate, but this is a BLP!
I Googled Ifejafunmi, and the only result I got were interviews on Ogunnowo, nothing on the film. Not even an imdb page.
I'm glad you stated that Yoruba industry has been getting attention since late 2000, according to the article, Ogunnowo first movie was in 2009, however 2016-present where shown to be her most significant moments, so she is a 21st-century actress, not a 20th-century actress.
One of the reasons why i dedicate so much time to create articles on the most notable Nigerian film awards some years ago was to give the indigenous content in the industry a structure on WP, and to buttress arguments at AFDs. The Africa Magic you speak about was developed mainly by me. Some years ago, I wanted to create an article on Yoruba Movie Academy Awards, I did extensive online research but found out the organizers were not seroius about holding a standard film award ceremony. And I was proved correct because the ceremony has not been held in a long while. Same can be said about City People Awards, but I decided to create that because they have been consistent fora long time, albeit substandard. I do not agree with you that Yoruba cinema have no avenue to win major awards, AMVCA have a category specifically designed for Yoruba actors/actresses/films, I remember creating an article for Jumoke Odetola through this. Other standard and consistent award ceremonies with categories for Yoruba cinema is AMAA and BON Awards, every other award ceremony at the moment can't confer notability on their own.
The issue of her tribal mark limiting her getting film roles is something interesting and encyclopedic
If you think there is under-representation of Yoruba films on Wikipedia, which is obviously stating the obvious, you can start by creating article for them. Articles are written by people, so far I know active Nigerian editors are still few here, the ones here are not interested in writing on Yoruba films, if you decide to start I will assist in wikifying them. The standard for keeping film articles is not as high as BLP.
I created Papa Ajasco article too, her role is not significant.
We can work together to improve Yoruba fim articles, once you get one reliable source discussing and an imdb page, I think it can be created.
My stance on this article at this time remain unchanged
Regards.HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an IMDB page * Bimbola Ogunowo like I said earlier on the article on main space, she is popularly known as "Bimbo Ogunowo" and here is a reliable source Punch.--Timi422 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the movie she co-wrote has an IMDB, "Èbúté"IMDB a drama played by Toyin Adegbola, Femi Adebayo and many more.--Timi422 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 20:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and given that few have ever heard of this actress in America, let alone her home country of Nigeria, there is no reason to keep this at all. Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. In a world-wide encyclopedia, it's not material if few in America have heard about her. What is important is she passes notability guidelines such as WP:NACTOR, which she does not. Ifnord (talk) 13:04, 2 August 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) Ifnord (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Andersen (archer)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only really known for his self-promotion on YouTube. PepperBeast (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore meets the general notability guideline. And as an archery speed world record holder, he is apparently notable per se. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andersen claims to hold a world record, but I couldn't find any evidence that he does. FWIW, the Guinness Book of World Records awards the speed record to Hamish Murray PepperBeast (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although his speed is not officially recognized by the Guinness World Records, it has been widely reported by independent sources. And Lars Andersen has also received significant public attention for his other archery skills. That's why I think that he meets the general notability guideline. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. search: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep. He is known first and foremost for being a fast archer, which is abundantly demonstrated in sources that go well beyond that single fact, and the article easily meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Perhaps nom would care to read the Danish sources as well, an alternative {{Find sources AFD}} has been provided. The nomination makes the bare claim that subject is not notable (WP:Not notable) and says "Only really known for his self-promotion on YouTube", but I don't see sources mention that it is "self-promotion" that he is known for. Sam Sailor 15:21, 27 July 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. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Challenge: A Sailing Simulation[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and fails to prove notability. I was unable to find any online sources besides the ones already in the article, and MobyGames only lists one other review. No possible redirect or merge targets so this should be deleted as a non-notable video game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NVIDEOGAMES does not help either. -The Gnome (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was ready to jump on the delete train, but there's not only a review in the NY Times when the game first came out, but PC Magazine actually looked back at the game and its peers in an article last year. Both sources have been added to the article. By the standards of an article today, this is a weak delete, but keep in mind that few online sources existed in 1986. I'm going to add one more I just found while typing this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of Tim's sources...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 19:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

-The NYT article presents a bunch of "cute, handy little programs" among which is the subject program, mentioned by name only once.

-In the PC magazine article, seven "early modem-to-modem computer games" are presented, among which is the subject program.

-In the great upload of the 1986 Annual Shopping Guide of Family Computing magazine, our subject gets reviewed with literally hundreds of other software. I have my doubts if that constitutes notability. Moreover, I spent some time perusing the mag and it seems most reviews are positive, if not enthusiastic. A suspect source, for me.

-La revue dans Tilt n'est qu'une parmi beaucoup d'autres, how do you say? One among many, many other small reviews.

-And the Changing Times piece has lists of gifts for the 1986 holidays and our subject gets a small mention with other software. Every product mentioned in the mag is lauded and praised. More uncritical promotion, I'm afraid.

By the way, someone correctly pointed out that we may lack online sources for notable video-games of the pre-internet era. Yet, there are some criteria for that era: Every game was reviewed back then! Yet, I submit not every game was notable. When a game was noticed/notable at the time, there were reports taking up serious space in the mags, such as a one- or two pager, at least; not just pocket reviews. So, all in all, this proud owner of dozens of Amiga games, plus one mint 500, and one mint 1200, someone who's all for the recognition of the geniuses of the recent videogame past, alas, fails to establish notability for the subject program on the basis of the cited sources. All we get for sure is essentially that the software existed. No one disputes that. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that almost every game was reviewed, but this one was highly praised at the time for being groundbreaking. Notability is not fleeting. Also, I thought it was important that PC Magazine chose to highlight this one among a handful of games 31 years later. WP:NTEMP, right? That puts in just in keep territory for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. What's barely above for you looks fairly below to me. It's limbo time! -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Gnome has spoken. Ifnord (talk) 13:06, 2 August 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gyal[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It also has no inline citations and references. BrantleyIzMe (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you sure you didnt get it mixed up with something else? It had 3 correctly enough formatted inline references when you nominated it. Anyway it now has 9, including articles from the Guardian, Pitchfork,and i-D among others; and there is several I could put in from Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia. Havent checked other spanish newspapers yet. Tired now, so will rewrite tommorrow. Ghastly as autotune music is, I'm afraid she may actually be notable. Curdle (talk)
Keep per significant coverage referenced in the article -- e.g., [6][7][8]. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 08:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage from Pitchfork and The Guardian are enough to pass WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 02:25, 30 July 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. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMNOT. Apparently this was screened twice, ten years ago; nobody in it is famous, nothing about it is interesting, and nobody has ever written about it except its cast and crew. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I concur with the nominator; I can't find anything written by anybody not associated with the film. Thus, there aren't any reliable sources to actually verify the content of this article, meaning it should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:FILMNOT. Ifnord (talk) 13:07, 2 August 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation. Additionally, no conensus has formed regarding the notion of redirection after deletion, as per IP 76.65.40.44's suggestion below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Dealer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES » Shadowowl | talk 17:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One other possibility could be a redirect to Gun shows in the United States.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has nothing to do with guns nor gun shows. -- » Shadowowl | talk 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the video game has nothing to do with gun shows but if there is a consensus that the article shoukd be deleted Gun dealer could be a redirect to the gun show article after the existing content is deleted. In short, I see delete and redirect to the gun show article as a viable option.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable then just delete it. A redirect about the general concept of gun dealer should be in sentence case. A title case implies a creative work, and would attract mislinks. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3: Hoax collaboration with IP. —Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McKenzie[edit]

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

Various edits from the article's creator, whose entire edit history is devoted to the article, show wildly different career statistics,outright vandalism and efforts to delete the article. There is only one inbound link (from the high school he purportedly attended), but no functioning sources in the article and none found in a Google search.

For an athlete who had a college career and spent two years in a professional league and scored more than 22 points per game, the lack of coverage makes it appear that the article is non-notable, if not an outright hoax that's been here for more than eight years. Alansohn (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 17:19, 25 July 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 Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 21:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alefosio Laki[edit]

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

Covered in Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics, only known for that one event, unless he participates in another Paralympics is unlikely to generate additional news coverage. Kees08 (Talk) 00:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Participating at the Paralympics is an automatic keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprisingly to me, not true. They have to win a medal, per WP:NSPORTS Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability is not temporary, if he was significant enough to have his own page. Then he still deserves it even if it does not generate future press. Twinky995 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is that the subject was never notable enough for a standalone wiki article, and that unless something else was done to prove notability, the article could be removed. I should have phrased it differently, but here we are. Kees08 (Talk) 03:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 03:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, I was basing this nomination from the result of Houssein Omar Hassan. I wrote that up to GA class, but it was rejected and then AfD'ed, resulting in a merge. Identical situation to this one, so something else to look at for consideration. Kees08 (Talk) 03:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please also consider WP:ATD-M when !voting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics Clearly does not meet WP:NSPORT and the coverage seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG as it is routine sports reporting. Doesn't meet any criteria for a standalone article and has no significant information not already present at the redirect target I gave. I believe the same can be said for the article on Maggie Aiono. A redirect seems like the best choice for both of these articles, especially when there have been no policy based reasons given for keeping the article under discussion. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a qualifier for a global championship at the highest possible level in his category with numerous independent sources directly about the subject like [9]. Laki is only about 21 and his career is far from over. --Habst (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think some local coverage is sufficient for GNG and I don't see how you claim WP:NSPORTS is met when the guidelines for paralympians is quite clear. Projecting future success falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papaursa, NSPORTS is unnecessary for notability, and I think the guidelines are particularly lacking for paralympians. The subject certainly meets GNG as proven by the multiple independent reliable sources such as [10], [11], and the above. Local coverage is perfectly fine for GNG and is not at all discouraged in WP:N -- in fact, when a proposal once stated the contrary it was rejected. The last sentence was in response to the nominator's comments, "unless he participates in another Paralympics is unlikely to generate additional news coverage". --Habst (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my concern. Since it's been determined by WP consensus that not all paralympians are notable, then he either needs to medal to meet WP:NSPORTS or have coverage beyond what a typical paralympian would get. At least that's my interpretation. If I'm wrong I hope someone, especially an admin, will correct me. All of them will get coverage from local sources (and possibly more) saying that they're going to the event, but that's not coverage beyond what they all get. Usually coverage that is typical for a position (like coverage of local politicians) isn't considered sufficient to show notability. Laki's coverage doesn't seem to be more than every other paralympian gets. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consistency is a good thing, but I think the most accurate way to establish notability is on a case-by-case basis rather than only by making blanket statements about the subject's profession or sport. Besides, recently similar articles about Paralympians like Maggie Aiono have been conclusively kept when challenged, which I think indicates that the NSPORTS guidelines pertaining to paralympians should be changed -- as it stands, the Paralympic notability guidelines are only bundled in with the senior Olympic guidelines in one bullet point, while I think they should have their own article section to better handle the differences between the two competitions. Until they are changed, WP:GNG overrides NSPORTS. --Habst (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think either of us will really convince the other and that's fine. Two final points to clarify: I'm not asking for his article to be deleted just redirected since his individual article contains nothing not in the redirect target and the Maggie Aiono article was not closed by an admin and was based on editors incorrectly claiming all Paralympians are notable. This latter was likely an invalid close since non-admins are only supposed to claim non-contentious AfDs and likely shouldn't be used as a precedent. Papaursa (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear, post the final round of discussions; giving it one final re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect None of the keep arguments seem very convincing or based on policy so I don't see any reason to keep this individual article. However, I think a redirect is reasonable.Sandals1 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics per Papaursa. Ifnord (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samoa at the 2016 Summer Paralympics per Papaursa and Ifnord. WP:NOLY clearly says that Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they... have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, and he did not win a medal, so not notable. Also fails GNG. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:37, 2 August 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 02:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Gray Bar Press[edit]

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

Confusing article that does not meet WP:NCORP. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of the press itself, only passing referential mentions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:42, 1 August 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. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Holtman[edit]

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

For similar reasons to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Tucholsky regarding over-coverage of a single softball game in 2008. NCAA Division II coaches aren't inherently notable, and there's only primary sources about her role there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems the problem is a lack of sources rather than notability. ESPN covered Holtman's career as Central Washington University head coach in 2012 [12], so there's the "national media attention" requirement in WP:NCOLLATH. As head coach, Holtman also led her team to three appearances in the NCAA Division II Softball Tournament [13]. I think she's accomplished enough as a college head coach to be notable. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources is what makes this person not notable. Saying this person is notable, but sources can't be found flies in the face of the basic WP notability policy. Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article stems from one event in one game as a player, so WP:BLP1E applies. As a coach, twice making the NCAA division II softball tournament is not sufficient to meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Coverage is either routine sports reporting or about that one play. Neither WP:NSPORT nor WP:GNG appear to be met. Papaursa (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can be closed as delete if no opposition is evident post this re-listing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree that WP:BLP1E applies. Don't believe the GNG or any SNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ansh 666 22:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuki Okamoto[edit]

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

Non-notable actress and model. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 11:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia article seems to indicate that she is no longer working as a model or as an actress, but there is a more extensive filmography there, including credits as one of the main actors or actresses in several apparently notable movies. Those could be indications of notability, if someone wanted to do the research and improve the article. Dekimasuよ! 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow someone with Japanese language skills to check the ja-wiki article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably fails WP:GNG but Oricon profile (www.oricon.co.jp/prof/330395/) shows enough activity in TV, movies, and advertising to (barely) pass WP:ENT. Only needs to pass one of those notability guidelines, so keep. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject's unverifiable claim to notability. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:ACTRESS. In none of the films in which she's cited as having participated was subject a main player. From the evidence online (e.g. here), she is trying to build a celebrity status, yet she fails WP:NCELEBRITY as well. -The Gnome (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment is on Natsuki Okamoto (television personality), not the subject of this AfD. This article should be properly disambiguated if both are found to be notable. The subject of this AfD is billed as high as second in film appearances linked on the Japanese Wikipedia (ja:Life (映画)), although it doesn't seem anyone has decided to update the English article to include films in which she was a main player. Dekimasuよ! 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The only prominent role I can locate is in the Shin Sasaki 2007 movie Life. I cannot find much else, besides background roles. And it seems I have the right person. -The Gnome (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Kotaku link is about Natsuki Okamoto (television personality). Kotaku’s writing about someone who was 48 (now 53), while the AfD discusses someone different who is under 30. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but can you provide this process with something concrete, something on which we can hang our Keep hats? We need sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was the female lead for A Sky Too Far to See (2011; ja:見えないほどの遠くの空を), the most recent listing for her on IMDB. Corroborated here. She had a significant recurring role in the TV Tokyo show ja:ケータイ捜査官7 (listed as a "main actor" by Oricon, also see, e.g. Asahi Shimbun [14]). Is this enough? Dekimasuよ! 19:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article that deals with her in TITLe (タイトル) 2006年 03月号. She also had several modeling DVDs. I don't know whether those are considered notable and they are a bit disturbing. But here are links: [15] [16] [17]. Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you use the term "disturbing." The proffered sources indicate we'd be entering into paedophilic territory with this. She's a 14-year old girl. Wikipedia, last I checked, is exceptionally severe in dealing with issues that can be assumed to promote in any way paedophilia. (See Wikipedia:Child protection; see ArbCom statement, 2010; see WP's blocking policy; see Jimbo's diamond-clear pointers in 2007 and in 2010; see Wikimedia executive director Sue Gardner's 2010 statement: "Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material.") Better watch out, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Good to point those things out. To be clear, she is now 28, the DVDs are not pornographic, and they are just what pop up in an Amazon Japan search. I'm no expert on what makes a gravure idol notable, but Japan has never been the best on the sorts of issues dealt with at Wikipedia:Child protection. I agree it would be best to get back to the Oricon and Asahi links above, and the other film from 2011. Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And since "Japan has never been the best on the sorts of issues dealt with at Wikipedia:Child protection," it's up to us, the editors of the English-language Wikipedia, to be vigilant. Whether the material offered as notability evidence is blessed by Amazon or the Catholic Church itself is immaterial. Better watch out, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in notable productions Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate something more specific so that I see what I'm missing. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Promotional language can be dealt with by editing. ansh 666 22:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinan Govani[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a journalist and writer, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for journalists or writers. This is referenced primarily to sources where Govani is the bylined author of the source, which is not how you reference a journalist as notable -- he has to be the subject of coverage written by other people, not the author of coverage of other things, to clear Wikipedia's notability standards. But the few sources here where he isn't the author aren't making him notable either, as most are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. There's literally only one source here (#16, a short blurb from the CBC's local news bureau in Toronto about his retirement from the National Post) that actually lines up with what's required -- but one valid source isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if the rest of the sourcing around it is garbage. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

additional primary and secondary references have been included to further validate Shinan Govani as a notable figure. thank you for your support! -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Changwo4 (talk • contribs)

I've already explained on your user talk page why the new sources you added aren't helping: one's a blog; one's a glancing namecheck of his existence in a book about somebody else; one's a Q&A interview in which he's giving soundbite about other people, not an article about him; and the last is about his taste in interior design, not about him doing anything remotely relevant to whether he would belong in an encyclopedia or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your continued feedback and close observation. I've provided additional feed back on my page in response to your key points.

Further, I've also included additional references that speaks about Shinan Govani, further validating this page and his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changwo4 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment there are some good sources out there, but he article is such a nauseating advertorial that it probably needs WP:TNT.96.127.242.226 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possible delete, but giving a final chance for further discussion...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bakazaka (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hannon, Gerald (September 2006). "The Fabulously Strange Life of Shinan Govani". Toronto Life. pp. 62–67. Archived from the original on 2007-03-25. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  Information about the source's page numbers in the print edition is available on page 198 of https://eprints.qut.edu.au/31241/1/Cori_Stewart_Thesis.pdf.
  Archiveurls of the six pages of the web article:
  The article notes:
  
  It began, none too auspiciously, in Uganda, where he was born in 1973, a couple of years after Idi Amin came to power … His father had also been born in Uganda, his mother in Tanzania. The grandparents on both sides had moved to East Africa from India, and even though the India connection is two generations removed, he feels a much stronger attachment to the subcontinent than to Africa. …
  From Uganda, the family fled first to Belgium, living for about a year as refugees, dependent on food rations, and finally, through family connections already in Canada, ended up in Toronto in an apartment building across from the Fairview Mall (which he describes as “the Norma Desmond of malls. It used to be big”). His father found work as a shipper-receiver in a factory, and his sister was born two years later. (Her name, Rishma, means “silky” or “fluffy” in Persian, he tells me. “It’s a common name in Bollywood movies. My name is made up. I’ve never met another Shinan. I’m invented. Like Marilyn Monroe. But not.”) The family is devoutly Ismaili Muslim (a subset of Shiite Muslims who consider the Aga Khan their spiritual leader). …
  ...
  He was a member of the debating society, and served on the student council in his later years—“I was such a keener,” he says. “But no one ran against me. I was acclaimed to the position. Always a bridesmaid.” He wrote a column for U of T’s The Newspaper, called Political Shenanigans.
  Gerald Hannon's article is an extensive profile of Shinan Govani.
2. Stren, Olivia (August 2004). "Little bigmouth". Toronto Life. Vol. 38, no. 8.
  The article notes:
  
  The scene: a mid-afternoon in June, and the sun is shining as bright as paparazzi flashbulbs. Shinan Govani, Social Creature (as he calls himself) is sipping an amaretto-laced iced latte at Bloor Street's hyper-swank Lobby. He is well styled for the role of gadfly: light facial hair, loose tie, distressed jeans, Gucci runners. At the moment, he's lounging on a voluminous white couch, looking decadently comfortable. He's ready to enjoy himself thoroughly. He always is.
  Not five minutes into our conversation, I'm treated to one or Govani's defining attributes: his laugh. It tumbles out of him almost uncontrollably, gradually gaining volume and vigour until, at mid-howl, it seems he's finally realized the full hilarity of the joke (usually his own); then it slows to a few chuckles, each like a latecomer to a raucous party. That laugh is now part of the soundtrack to most Toronto functions, where the wee Govani zips about--the schmoozer par excellence--with in my element merriment. Each exchange (double kiss, witty riposte, punctuating guffaw) lasts no more than a few minutes. Though he is technically there to observe the scene, he remarks with not a whiff of modesty, "Now I am the scene."
  As gossip columnist for the National Post. Govani spends about six nights a week at parties, covering anything that involves cosmos and stilettos: resto openings, media events, the Cannes Film Festival, Naomi Campbell's birthday party in St. Tropez. During last year's Toronto film festival, he attended 40 fetes in a single week. One unusually slow night led him to the Xacutti bar for a solo nightcap; it ended with him sharing yam frites with Renee Zellweger.
  ...
  Although he read voraciously (his parents didn't allow him to go to movies) and loved writing (he proudly recounts the time he won a Scarborough-wide competition at age 10), he never considered a career as a writer. "I was supposed to be a nice chiropractor or something," he chortles. He went to U of T and studied poli-sci, then took off to meet the bigger world. He interned at US and Rolling Stone in New York, worked with Conservative cabinet minister Janet Ecker in Toronto, and enrolled at the London School of Economics but never finished his degree ("I majored in London, as one does"). In 1998, he worked in Washington, D.C., with the heady-sounding Council on Hemispheric Affairs but spent most of his time obsessively following another kind of affair: the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. At 25 came the career turning point: he wrote an article about the secret link between Monica Lewinsky and Starbucks (thesis: the coffee chain plotted the sex scandal) and sent it to a slew of American mags. Shortly thereafter, he got a call from J.F.K. Jr., who praised the piece and then published it in George. Govani returned to Toronto in 2000 to pursue freelance writing. After contributing regularly to the Post's comment page, he was summoned to editor Ken Whyte's office and offered the gossip gig.
3. Eckler, Rebecca (2009-09-10). "Some names in Shinan Govani's new novel are real, some aren't. That's why it's fun". Maclean's. Archived from the original on 2016-09-26. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  During the 90 minutes I spend with Shinan Govani, Canada’s most celebrated gossip columnist, Victoria Beckham is being touted as the new Paula Abdul on American Idol, rumours are swirling about a pregnant Halle Berry, and Matthew Broderick and Molly Ringwald have spoken about John Hughes’s death. One sentence into this piece and I’ve managed to name-drop six celebrities. But I can’t hold a candle to Govani, whose first novel, Bold Face Names, is being released this month. By page 10, Govani has dropped the names of 66 famous people or star-studded events, including Julia Roberts, Hugh Grant, Jimmy Choo, Susan Boyle, Suri Cruise and even David Frum.
  ...
  The book is great fun, if a little insider-ish.
  ...
  His biggest scoop to date was bringing actress Mary Jo Eustace to the MuchMusic Video Awards. Organizers hid them in a room because Tori Spelling, Eustace’s former husband’s new wife, was there. And Govani’s “fairly certain” he was the one who first announced Ryan Gosling’s and Rachel McAdams’s romantic relationship.
4. Lucchetta, Carla (2009-09-17). "Boldface Names, by Shinan Govani". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  This was quite a few years before the advent of the ubiquitous Shinan Govani, the National Post tattler and author of Boldface Names, who has the flack/hack relationship down pat, and uses his book to show exactly how. It features a main character named Ravi, uncannily similar to the man himself, who attends functions, writes about them and, in the case of the book, at least, has slight traces of a conscience, a desire to explain his vocation and hankers to leave behind the high life of celebrity-watching and all its many perks.
  ...
  Now, if Govani is as well read as his doppelganger, and with the way he has with a metaphor (even with his overuse of hyphenated, made-up, de rigueur words and phrases), you have to wonder why he didn't write something else entirely. Something a little further afield from the party-going, name-dropping, power-wielding yet limiting tale told from an exclusive and, we're supposed to feel, enviable behind-the-scenes vantage point.
  I've seen and heard the book being called "social satire," but in an age when celebrity antics pass for hard news, coming at us breathlessly from every corner of the media, it's difficult to make a case for a gossip columnist toying so precariously with his own livelihood - even if it takes place mostly in Toronto and we Canadians care far less about our so-called star system than our U.S. counterparts. Perhaps Govani has an exit strategy similar to that of his fictional twin, a serious writing career plan to take him away from the gruelling, vacant world of celebrity gossip/worship.
5. Kelly, Cathal (2009-09-06). "Will a gossip king's invites dry up? - Tattler Shinan Govani serves up juicy bits in his roman a clef. Just in time for TIFF". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Appropriately, it's on page six that Shinan Govani begins hoofing his old boss, Conrad Black, in the nads. But it's gentle - more of an onside kick than a point after.
  ...
  Govani, the city's best-known gossip tattler, has shoehorned the fallen press baron into his first novel, the roman a clef Boldface Names. Or, it's pretty clear he has.
  ...
  He goes out to the sorts of parties that you wish you'd been invited to. And once there, he watches. Occasionally, he speaks. Rarely, he eats. Then he leaves and goes to the next party.
  He's there to find an anecdote, to run into what he calls "serendipity." Serendipity might mean someone you've heard of making out with someone else you've heard of. If they do it within a square kilometre of Govani's constantly twitching celebrity antennae, they can expect to see it in print the next day.
  ...
  Govani is not in any sense nasty. He is positively luminescent.
  ...
  Not just a character tick, it's a survival strategy. By never dipping too low, Govani has earned himself free entry into the city's most glittering homes. By this point, he's a bigger local star than many of the names he highlights in his National Post column.
6. Walker, Morley (2009-09-13). "He can gossip, but not write". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  TWO sentences into his debut novel, you know that National Post gossip columnist Shinan Govani should stick with his day job.
  ...
  Boldface Names, a sloppy and self-aggrandizing roman à clef about the prowlings of a Toronto gossip columnist, offers incontrovertible proof of an author who can neither write nor think.
  ...
  Ethnically East Indian, vertically challenged and drop-dead witty (just like his creator on all three counts, no doubt), Ravi spends the novel going from party to party, trolling for column material among the chattering classes.
7. "National Post's Shinan Govani exits Toronto party circuit". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2013-10-15. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  When Shinan Govani began his society column in the National Post 12 years ago, there was no Drake Hotel, the Distillery District was just starting, and, as he remembers, “Bistro 990 was the hottest place in town.”
  Things have changed. Now there are new restaurants opening weekly, international stars who call Toronto home and an industry of society chroniclers.
  And, as of this week, Govani, the godfather of Toronto gossip writers, has hung up his bow tie for now and retired his column.
  After the dinners, openings, premieres, galas and functions, Govani has left the national newspaper. In chronicling celebrity culture in the city, Govani estimates to have attended 6623 events.
8. Shea, Courtney (2013-10-19). "Shinan Govani remembers 12 years of fabulousness". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2018-08-01. Retrieved 2018-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  When Shinan Govani started writing his gossip column for the National Post in 2001, there was no eTalk, there was no TMZ, and Drake was some unknown on the new Degrassi. Since then he has documented the rise of Toronto's ruling classes, attending some 6,623 parties and anointing it girls and hotspots at every turn. Last week Mr. Govani announced his departure from Post (he plans to spend the next few months travelling, writing and maybe even – gasp! – staying in). Here, he dishes on how high society has changed since those early days behind the velvet rope.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shinan Govani to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG also requires secondary sources to establish notability. Interviews or reports of interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources that are sufficient to establish some facts but not sufficient to establish notability. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That some of these articles include quotes from the subject do not make them primary sources. The quotes are interspersed with extensive research and commentary from the journalists. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pretty even disagreement over whether new sources are enough to pass notability. Promotional language can be cleaned up through editing *cough cough* ansh 666 22:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTCJam[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Bigcoin87 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is significant coverage but it is all industry publications and most of it is general announcements. The only reliable source I found (Forbes) is simply a brief mention so would not count for notability. Agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've reviewed the citations in the current version and added a WP:CORPDEPTH-type table to Talk:BTCJam. As of this writing, there are insufficient quality sources to support notability of the subject. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I've added a new citation which increases the # corpdepth valid citations to 3 (from 2). Not sure if this will tip, but here is the diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — ...and a fourth added. See the diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - striking previous !vote and changing to "Keep" as both book references provided by Ceyockey above appear to meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. Delete Agree with above, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is entirely promotional in tone; just because the company is defunct doesn't mean that it can't be promoted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Promotional tone is not a reason for deletion of an article about an otherwise notable topic, as this is a style matter that can be revised through editing. If the article is retained, could add Template:Advert as a hatnote. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually 100% is: WP:NOTSPAM is a core policy. WP:N is a guideline that incorporates WP:NOT into it as an equal part of its test to the GNG. Something cannot both be promotional and be notable at the same time under the notability guideline. The deletion policy also recognizes this in WP:DEL4, which deals with entirely promotional content, and WP:DEL14, which incorporates WP:NOT and gives editors in AfD wide discretion as to whether or not to delete something for failing NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per SoWhy...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the new sources, I think notability is demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search on the web indicates that the subject is notable. If it is promotional in tone, deletion is not the solution, rather impormvent is a better solution. Rgyalu (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed and blocked sock.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rgyalu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Porter/Rousse chapter and the TechCrunch article are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 12:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TechCrunch doesn't establish notability: it is not a reliable source as most of the content is not independent, so it is ruled out by WP:ORGIND, meaning it does not count towards WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the book source meets WP:NCORP, and one source is not enough to establish notability. The rest are trade press/blogs/crap like TechCrunch that we haven't accepted as proof of notability in at least two years. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (video game)[edit]

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

I was going to PROD this but I was concerned that I may have missed some possible sources and given the lack of attention the page gets, it would have been unfairly deleted. However, all I have been able to find are [18] [19] [20]. As it stands, this is a non-notable video game unless anyone else is able to find additional reliable sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep the extensive PCWorld and RPS reviews establish notability. Poor article non-the-less, will put on watch list and maybe improve. Shaddim (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: Given this is a paragraph long, that leaves us with an interview and an article. It'd be quite difficult to argue that a topic is notable using only two sources. Note the GiantBomb reference is a wiki. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well our notability criteria require only "multiple reliable sources with extensive handling of the topic". Two reliable good sources are multiple (+ lesser refs). Being called "the Dwarf fortress in space" is very strong positive statement, indicating notability. Additionally to this: this was not an one hit wonder but is after 14 years still under development with an active community. So, active and real world reception, clear keep.Shaddim (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These sources don't exactly scream notability to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the connection established in the RPS interview of the developer, I would suggest a 2-3 sentence brief description in some sort of "Legacy" section in the article on Starfire (board wargame). Merge and redirect. --Izno (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/merge/redirect/(and keep) – ?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PCWorld is the most solid source. Giantbomb appears to be a wiki for the game. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is an email interview with the developer. I feel it would need more sources to be notable. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no need for feelings, as we have policies saying something is notable if "multiple reliable sources discussing it in detail", we have two which is multiple. Also, sources don't make something notable, their existence (hopefully) reflect a notability, so they are a some indirect measure to assess notability. Also, an interview is an in detail discussion, well thought out and prepared reception of a journalist, so counts. +notabiloty: the game is awarded with title being "Dwarf fortress in space" +notability: real world impact be being in use by many for 14 years, which should have weight (our excessive focus on determining notability as "how relevant is this topic for the reality/world" primarily on counting so called "reliable" sources instead of real usage and society reception is annoying) Shaddim (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An interview is clearly a non-independent source if not also a primary work, so it doesn't count toward GNG concerns. Your arguments are otherwise mostly WP:ATADD. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the Mill video game article that is supported by un-notable references. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the references should not be notable, the subject should be notable. Being the "dwarf fortress of the 4x games" is notability. Shaddim (talk) 17:45, 2 August 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yinka Faniyan[edit]

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

non-notable, insufficient references RJFJR (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is commonwealth participation not enough reason for inclusion? HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Let me start by saying fencing is a largely unpublicized sport in Nigeria, despite being quite vast in many sporting event, I have no clue on how the game is played. Now back to this article, I have tried to really dig deep concerning the subject, and what I discover is that the peak of Faniyan's career was between 2006 and 2010. This period represents a time frame where internet penetration was not as high as today so it is understandable why coverage for an unpopular sport athlethe will be low. Nevertheless, Faniyan participated in a number of international competitions like British Fencing Association [21] [22], Commonwealth Fencing Championships,[23] that make me to believe that he was arguably the number one Nigerian fencer at some point. Presently, he is not listed on the website of the International Fencing Federation, despite about 10 Nigerians being there meaning he is presently not active. I also went through WP:ATHLETE, and the lack of sport-specific criteria for fencing makes it difficult for me to apply. As the nom stated, the lack of sources makes me want to !vote delete, but the feeling that sources should exist somewhere on the internet or in print based on above make me settle for neutral. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a biography of a non-notable person. The claim of the top 100 fencers in the world by 2008 is unsourced, and the rest is extremely unremarkable (After graduating, he worked part-time while looking for a permanent position within this chosen field.) Participating in the Commonwealth Games is never a guarantee of meeting notability standards, and the fencing competition is not directly affiliated with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possible delete per WP:BIODEL, but giving it a final chance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Malays National Organisation leaders[edit]

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

Unref and this table can included in UMNO page angys (Talk Talk) 08:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should add references, but it's a list of leaders of a major political party and a valid split of the main article. SportingFlyer talk 22:59, 28 July 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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Under-19 cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2018[edit]

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

Same rationale for a very similar AfD which has just been closed as delete. U19 tours are not usually notable, unless it's the U19 World Cup, for example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too specific to have its own article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous AfD and many other before, U-19 tours are not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned by others, too specific for a standalone article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 29 July 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. ansh 666 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto de Ensino Teologico Bíblico do Brasil[edit]

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

Non-notable educational institution. Part of a cross-wiki spam and promotion campaign by various socks of AMILTON DE CRISTO (mentioned as the president of the institution). Also worth noting is the lack of verifiable third-party sources and a Google search reveals the various language articles about this institution and their Facebook page with no other mentions. Hiàn (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to pre-sock version dated 8 July 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instituto_de_Ensino_Teologico_B%C3%ADblico_do_Brasil&oldid=728993846 The current version is a mess. It claims it was founded in 2013, yet there are references to 2006–2007. The affiliation is Assemblies of God yet the church is specifically Assembleias de Deus. If the school president is the leader of Assembleias de Deus with 22.5 million members, why is he running the school and not the church, and why is he not mentioned in the Assembleias de Deus article? Strong vandalism that should not have kept going since 2017, so let's go back to 2016 when the article was GOCE copy-edited and a stub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The re-stubbed version is better-presented but I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG. Only 40 hits for the full name on Google, many Wikipedia-derived. Nothing more useful in the results for "IETBB". Couldn't find news or book hits. The Portuguese article was deleted, though persists on Wikiversity. It looks much like the nominated version of the English, with no references. The French and Spanish articles don't provide any useful sources about the institute itself. Mortee (talk) 17:08, 25 July 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. ansh 666 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambalavana Desikar[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Unsourced, possible hoax. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article gives way too few clews for me to fully figure out what the claim of notability is. It seems to be he was religious leader of some indeterminate type about 100 years ago in a village in southern India. The fact that his listed title links to an article on an office in the Roman Empire makes the whole thing indiscrnible. However it is high time we deleted all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 28 July 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. ansh 666 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane (group)[edit]

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

Declined speedy, the rationale being WP:BAND#6. Which I don't understand. anyhow, lack of notability TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be interested to hear from User:SoWhy which of the WP:BAND criteria this troupe actually passes...perhaps thinking of #2? The article certainly makes grandiose (but unspecified) claims about their two singles; but the songs' success is not reflected in the sources: Both Feel Right and Irma, Maria clearly sank without trace.
Having said that, it SoWas SoWhy's* call there, and certainly not unjustifiable one, as much of the content, while verging on the WP:PROMO, is making claims of significance—even if those claims are of dubious credibility. In any case, I'm not personally averse to having these discussions, even when it might seem as if the could be bypassed. the way I see it, if we have the discussion now, and establish a consensus nice and early that an article is unsuitable for inclusion, then we can rely in future on the slightly more robust G4. Back to this article: Delete, as the coverage is as limited for the band as it is for their records, i.e. Non-existant. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* :)

@Serial Number 54129: As I explained on the nominator's talk page (unfortunately they only asked me after starting this AFD), #6 of WP:BAND was the basic reasoning, i.e. if two notable members make a band notable, surely one notable member (especially considering the options of WP:ATD) is sufficient to pass A7. Regards So Why 12:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:, true of course. I was—unsure—whether it applied though; I read ...contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles as basically demanding multiplicities to enjoin notability (i.e., one or the other, but more than one of whichever). Now, I would have suggested that the latter criterion cannot apply, as although Sanja Vučić is clearly notable, it appears she has only been a member of one "independently notable ensembles" (ZAA), not the required "two or more". Regarding the first criterion—theer might be some confusion here. Although it seems as if we have two notable members, the link for Ivana Nikolić is to a Serbian politician of the same name; the HG's website makes it pretty clear they are different people. This suggests to me that the article is resting on having one notable member who has been in one notable ensemble, which is insufficient to pass WP:BAND.

However, as I said, I'd, in any case, be in favour of this AfD, as I see them as being potentially a time-saver for the future, and the policy of the community deciding consensus rather than a patrolling admin should reign supreme. I also agree that merging / redirecting this (assuming that there is anything acceptedly sourced include) to the one notable member of the group is an acceptable outcome per ATD-R. And just to clarify, while I don't think the article passes WP:BAND, I think that a single notable member is very much enough to pass A7...ironically, if you'd based your decline on that instead of BAND, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now :) ;) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Actually, I had, the "WP:BAND#6" was only the last part of a comment that read something like "having one notable member makes a band significant, cf. WP:BAND#6" but somehow the first part got lost, probably because of my mouse which has been annoying me for months now with randomly selecting text when I click somewhere (doubleclicking instead of singleclicking). I only noticed that the text was incomplete with TLT talkbacked me. Note to self: Buy new mouse. Regards So Why 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Join MI5 and receive training in reading invisible writing :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Slightly off-topic, but maybe you could try changing the sensitivity of your system's registering of double clicks first? Adam9007 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Thanks for the tip but I tried that already. It only happens infrequently and when I click once, not twice, so mechanical failure is more likely. But that is very off-topic now ;-) Regards So Why 15:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now – there's nothing in English that I can find, but there are a few bits and pieces in Serbian: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. The trouble is, I can't read Serbian, and I don't know how many of these sources are reliable ones. This is probably a WP:TOOSOON case – the group have clearly modelled themselves on Destiny's Child and similar R&B acts, so it wouldn't be a surprise if they did have a hit in the near future. Richard3120 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There may be enough sources in the group's native tongue to demonstrate notability if anyone is interested in translating them. I was able to locate most of the sources listed by Richard3120 above. Also, do not confuse this group with the notable Hurricane (band), the metal group from the 1980s. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone !voting yet?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:TOOSOON. Native speaker here, but you really don't need one to assess that the coverage located by Richard3120 is of tabloid provenance. Blic counts as a RS, but is basically the local equivalent of Daily Mail – generally reliable but sensationalist news coverage plus a lot of celebrity gossip (and this article is in their "entertainment" rubric); mostly the same for Republika.rs and Vesti online. I think that we have a "famous for being famous" case here, three good-looking girls making a "supergroup" with only a couple of songs and some plans for more. Their "Irma, Maria" video has some 200k YT views, and "Feel Right" some 300k, indicating they are not terribly big hits even considering that the local market is relatively small. No such user (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and thanks to No such user for reviewing the non-English sources. Ifnord (talk) 23:33, 1 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Class (2016 film)[edit]

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

I don't think this film meets WP:GNG and WP:FILM. It is essentially an amateur film, a documentary of student life. There is a review on IMDb (not a reliable source) but it is provided by Danny McManus, the film's producer, editor, actor and film-maker. I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find absolutely no reliable sources for this film. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Late to the party, but non-notable and full of non-notability...how many redkikns is that? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two articles about the film from an independent source, the State Press ([30] [31]) another source, the Carolinian ([32]), a review by a political expert, Hank Nuwer [33], and an entire fucking magazine feature about the film!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 21:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above by Editor E shows that the film passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFILM. The cited sources are strictly college-related. The Carolinian is a student newspaper in UNCG; State Press is a student newspaper in ASU; the "Hazing Clearinghouse" is a personal blog written by a former Franklin professor; finally, the aforementioned "entire fucking feature" is in a college magazine. None of these sources are relevant in this context. Our article is not about a college or "college life" but about a film; perhaps it might be mentioned in articles related to student life. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's nothing inherently unreliable about student or university publications. The State Press may or may not be a bit too close, since that university is where this film was created. College Times doesn't seem to be a student-created publication, though it's intended for students and is distributed at several local campuses, including ASU. That said, I don't think the film is notable, but it's somewhat borderline. ansh 666 09:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about "nothing inherently unreliable" is one with which I fully agree. The assessment of student and university publications as being not enough for the subject at hand has been made in the context of the AfD: It should be expected that a film (whether fiction of non-fiction) with its main context being, say, scuba diving, would generate comments and interest in the scuba diving media, community, and websites. So, college media devotes space to a film on "college life." Nothing unexpected or unexceptional. To some, of course, as seen above, that may be enough for verifiable evidence of a film's notability. It's just that for me it isn't. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:FILM. The presented sources don't meet WP:NFSOURCES, because these student papers don't have a reliable publication process, and are not considered authoritative in the field of film. — Newslinger talk 02:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and The Gnome, who does a good job summing up the (lack of) reliable, secondary sources. Ifnord (talk) 23:31, 1 August 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) Lepricavark (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement field (mechanics)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a technical subject. Possible hoax. » Shadowowl | talk 16:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax [34][35][36][37][38]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick WP:BEFORE-style search shows that the concept of a displacement is a fundamental one in the theory of elasticity (.e.g., Linear_elasticity#Displacement_formulation), and a displacement field is the continuum version used in Continuum_mechanics#Displacement_field. GBooks and and GScholar searches of "displacement field" elasticity show many sources--XOR'easter has listed a few above and has usefully added a couple to the article. While one could debate whether it is better to keep the stub or merge to the continuum mechanics section, this is a clearly notable topic that more than suggests keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to displacement (fluid), displacement in mechanics is important is elastic materials. --MaoGo (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could conceivably be merged or redirected into another, larger article, but we can decide that at a later date. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it is not advisable to consider things in a technical field where one has no special knowledge to be a possible hoax. It's too easy to make mistakes like this. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 29 July 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) Lepricavark (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Khiladi Ek Haseena (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Has no sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFILM a Bollywood film with two notable actors Feroz Khan and Fardeen Khan. Box office earnings of ( equivalent ₹27 crore or US$3.9 million in 2017) is notable. The movie is considered one of the notable works of the director [39][40] There are sources if you want to dig in. Movie is of 2005, so it will be a little tough. --DBig Xray 18:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added references to establish notability. Inwind (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additionally this film passes WP:FILM criteria 1 - "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Either the nom doesn't understand WP:FILM or they didn't practice WP:BEFORE as stipulated in WP:AFD. Well, we know by their RfC of bot-tool generating over 150 AfDs that it was at least the latter. --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources coverage such as the BBC Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Source mentioned in RS is reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:39, 31 July 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) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Tetelo Vargas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBUILD. » Shadowowl | talk 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This stadium is the home of an active Dominican winter league team. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have to vote for a merge to that article. Notability is not inherited. -- » Shadowowl | talk 01:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added refs to establish notability. Inwind (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seemed strange to me the most important ballpark in one of the most important baseball cities in the world wouldn't be notable, and a very quick before search shows a number of different sources to pass WP:GNG, such as: [41]. SportingFlyer talk 05:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE. The article has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I added an infobox and some information from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia. 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep Major project check, new refs added to support notability check, notable in quick searches check, meets my criteria which lines up with WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 31 July 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) Lepricavark (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Auditorium[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. Has no sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The nomination is understandable since the 12 year old three-sentence stub does not present a specific factual basis for this Memphis theater's notability, but source searches strongly suggest that it was, in fact, a notable building. See e.g. books that describe it as "a combination athletic arena, concert hall, convention center, and retail produce market" [42] and as "the primary venue for large attractions both theatrical and arena." [43] The website historic-memphis.com has a detailed page about the building's history.[44] That website appears to be treated as a reliable source in other Memphis articles, but even if it is not, the facts detailed there could presumably be verified by someone with time and sufficient access to newspaper archives and other sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as a major venue. We normally keep such articles. It can be difficult to separate the sourcing from that on events, but its normally available. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again you made this AfD nomination within a minute of making another AfD nomination, which really suggests you aren't doing anything with WP:BEFORE. Sources are immediately found with a simple search, and it appears to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Has no sources" is not a valid reason for deletion. Take a minute and find sources, instead. Don't waste our time, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 05:56, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Helmetcam Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSERIES. Has no sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable show, and as User: Shadowowl points out, the article has no sources. The only two external links are an external link to the show's own site on Twitter and a link to the Internet Movie Database, and Wikipedia is not meant to be the Internet Movie Database.Vorbee (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--1l2l3k (talk) 15:06, 2 August 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. WP:SNOW keep, with notability demonstrated by the addition of new sources. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic freedom[edit]

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

Few if any sources. The article mentions the article artistic license to which perhaps it can be merged. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though its pretty useless. The subject is certainly notable, & I don't think a merge with the pretty different artistic license a good idea. Let's hope it will be expanded. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I certainly think this is worthy of an encyclopedic entry in of itself. However the page does require much expansion. I think there is likely a decent amount of information which could be written on the subject and found via a variety of sources and source types to use for citations. Helper201 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is absolutely a noteworthy topic where plenty of sources exist. Oppose merging to Artistic license, that's a different issue. We don't seem to have anything else on freedom of artistic expression, so that's what this article can cover. Vexations (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on that reasoning, I created a redirect from Freedom of artistic expression. I hope this is acceptable to all. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five sources added.96.127.242.226 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the line "Software patents are often seen as an example of one of these restrictions. " seems out of place. Perhaps someone can make that fit the article?96.127.242.226 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article now has many citations of significant coverage in reliable sources, and there is still plenty of room for this article to expand further. Also, oppose merge with artistic license, as it is an entirely distinct topic, more closely related to freedom of expression if anything. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 03:59, 26 July 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. ansh 666 22:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Sharma (doctor)[edit]

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

This article fails the basic requirement for biographies. Sources given are almost all self-published, or only mention the subject by name and do not support the claims in the article. (See talk page for more details). Brad v 14:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Srishtigosain, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Accesscrawl, Hi! Can you please help me regarding the sources that I can mention to prove notability. That will be of great help and will save the page from deletion Srishtigosain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Srishtigosain: You'll need to find multiple sources showing that the doctor meets the general notability guidelines. (WP:GOLDENRULE summarizes it in one sentence.) Alternatively, you can provide evidence showing that she meets one of the additional notability criteria for people. — Newslinger talk 03:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ifnord The citations proving the notability have been added in the references.Srishtigosain

Being quoted does not confer notability. Writing books does not confer notability. The article, which looks more and more like a promotional piece, is missing reliable sources (WP:SOURCES) that has the subject as its focus. I would also counsel you to have a look at WP:COI for Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Ifnord (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:45, 2 August 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. Nomination has been withdrawn by nominator, Cwmhiraeth. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 13:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design Canada[edit]

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

I think this film does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The references include two interviews with the director but I cannot find substantial coverage of the film by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - The copyright violations have been removed and the extra citations demonstrate notability. I must admit that when I nominated the article for AfD, I was annoyed by the creator having removed my speedy deletion tag. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have mentioned that I nominated this article for speedy deletion under G11 and G12 but the creator of the article, Werldwayd, removed the speedy deletion notice against policy. To his credit he has removed the copyright infringement, improved the article and added more sources, but when he votes keep, he is not a disinterested party. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in The Globe and Mail is acceptable. It is more a review than an interview, and there is enough non-interview text to count for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As well, the Wired article is more than an interview. I think that it is also an independent and useful source that counts for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now there are references giving substantial coverage of the film from WIRED, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (English), Radio-Canada (French). There are also lengthy articles in addition, in Azure, Straight, Design Week, Point of View, The GATE and others for this very notable and greatly covered documentary film. werldwayd (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as the article now has references to significant coverage in reliable sources so passes GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 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. Consensus seems to agree that notability is identified by the identified sources. No consensus for any other deletion reason post-cleanup. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nieca Goldberg[edit]

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

Notability Nicodemus (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Nieca Goldberg[reply]

Comment: When one subtracts this MDs media coverage one finds that she has done no more than many academic cardiologists in New York City. She has, to her credit, worled to better health care, but has no outstanding scientific accomplishment to her credit that would lift her above the usual academic physician. The neutrality of the article has been disputed previously with seemingly no attempt to correct it. Is being seen on Dr. Oz and cereal boxes criteria for a page on Wikipedia?Nicodemus (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Scientific accomplishment and Wikipedia notability are independent concepts. Dr. Goldberg appears to have done enough in the public sphere for women's health issues to be notable.David notMD (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The applicable notability guidelines are the General notability guideline and our notaility guideline for people and the "professor test". I have not yet been able to go through all the sources but almost all of them are from affiliated sources and it is entirely unclear what Goldbergs specific contributions are. There's much that say she's "a nationally recognized pioneer", but what she pioneered exactly is never mentioned. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had already removed content from Media section that was all based on very flimsy citations, and agree with Vexations that many the remaining citations need to be evaluated. Be aware that this was the first article the editor created. David notMD (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this should have been speedied per PROMO. This is not even close to a decent WP article and should be removed from mainspace promptly. The editor who created this has been asked about COI and paid editing and said no; this is not credible. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a GS h-index of 10, there is certainly no pass of WP:Prof in a very highly cited field. WP:GNG is not passed and the BLP reads as if written by a PR operative. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep GNG is passed. I've cleaned up the article, removed a lot of puffery and added reliable sources. She is the author of 2 books, the first is very highly reviewed by several sources. She's a prominent figure in the media for her women's heart advocacy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing books contributes nothing to notability. The only reviews I can see are in a trade journal. Can you specify? Most of the sources are interviews with the subject and, not being sources independent of the subject, do not contribute to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

She's reviewed in NYTimes, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly. The fact that PW and LJ are trade journals doesn't make them unreliable sources at all. They're used in the library and bookselling industry to help professionals like myself make decisions about collection development. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After all that effort I'm still completely mystified as to what exactly her clinical innovations are. And we're keeping that in the lead? Vexations (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After cleanup she appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Vexations' concerns about "what exactly her clinical innovations are" are irrelevant: such innovations would be neither necessary nor sufficient to pass GNG or AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a claim repeatedly made in the sources, which in my opinion are promotional and should not be used if they keep repeating that claim without substantiating it. That reduces the number of valid sources to a point where GNG is no longer met. Still leaning delete. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR & WP:GNN. PROF is not relevant in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether there was a COI for the creator of the article (denied) is moot. That person has not edited the article since shortly after it was created in May 2017. There have been many revisions since then. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those revisions are an abysmal failure. The article is still a horrifically promotional piece with completely unsubstantiated claims. It's a disgrace.Vexations (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl and David Eppstein. Notability is established. AFD is not for cleanup. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed per David Eppstein.Emily Khine (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with David Eppstein here. --Krelnik (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. I fixed some language that read like a PR piece. StonyBrook (talk) 19:23, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana N. Mickushina[edit]

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

Does not appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage. All content online that I can find about this individual can be traced back to her own website. None of the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR seem to have been met, and there are virtually no unaffiliated sources available. Article was created by the subject's publicist.Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 31 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modani Furniture[edit]

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

References are all just press releases, routine coverage of business activity, or non-WP:RS and I found nothing better. Fails modern WP:NCORP standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was not convinced at the previous AfD (for which I was the nominator), and it's made worse by still being the product of COI/paid/promotional editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP and its obviously paid Lyndaship (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First thing is, there are a few references and those don't look a subjective coverage either. Just press releases. Rgyalu (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 04:08, 26 July 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 Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Calls for boycott. Agreed consensus that it was an unneeded ContentFork, without sufficient collating notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2019 Boycott Movement[edit]

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

I don't see any reason for this being an independant article. It may work quite well being redirect to Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019#Calls_for_boycott Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the RÚV have stated that Iceland will take part next year "just like every year” (Skarphéðinn Guðmundsson said that), so the movement is chiefly over in Iceland. Its very unlikely they will back out of the contest when making the official announcement in autumn. I don't know whats happening in Ireland, there may be continuing coverage there. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect So redirect, per nom? The coverage looks in passing and routine. A substantial parent page already exists to cover it.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019#Calls_for_boycott; possibly Speedy because no argument for deletion is presented. I agree with the argument for a redirect; there's insufficient activity to justify a stand-alone article at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eurovision_Song_Contest_2019#Calls_for_boycott.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move + Redirect the title gives the impression of an organize movement like Civil Rights movement, MeToo movement. This isn't a movement at all, just random call of boycotts as part of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It's not an independent movement so I think that the redirect should also be removed. Or at least changed to Eurovision 2019 boycott.Sokuya (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If this gets significant news coverage and more actual substance in reality it might deserve its own page (this could very well happen). However in the current state of affairs, the article runs afoul of notability, and has a slight stench of WP:CRYSTAL.--Calthinus (talk) 01:53, 1 August 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 Rival Sons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Miley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Sources are Facebook and a source which seems to be down. » Shadowowl | talk 19:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rival Sons. Artist is not notable on his own, but a redirect to his current band would be appropriate. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rival Sons. As an individual the artist fails WP:GNG andWP:MUSICBIO, but his band is certainly notable, and most of the verifiable information about the artist is already included in the Rival Sons article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems agreement this article should be removed, but discussion as to complete delete or redirect to Rival Sons undecided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above; no evidence of independent notability for this drummer to warrant a standalone article at this time. gongshow talk 08:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OVV – Shanghai Xingdu Clothing Co., Ltd’s Womenswear Brand[edit]

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

This article appears to be promotional content for a company named Shanghai Xingdu Clothing Co., Ltd. It needs to be completely deleted and (if possible) recreated as a proper Wikipedia article, if a separate article doesn't exist already. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete promotional, unsourced, unclear notability, most likely undeclared paid work. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:19, 25 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

បីសាចគួរអោយស្រលាញ់់[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM. If kept, the article title should be translated or at least put in latin script. Google translate : bei sa ch kuor aoy sralanh, 3 lovely birds. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM non notable actors. Non notable film.--DBig Xray 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether anyone has heard of something or not has no bearing on notability. Some sources were mentioned but not addressed by anyone else, so I'm uncomfortable closing with any result. ansh 666 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Baltic American National Committee[edit]

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

An unremarkable advocacy group. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions. Created by Special:Contributions/Comonomo91 with no other contributions outside this topic and edited by Special:Contributions/JBANC, an account that seems to belong to the org (JBANC is the acronym of the group). Does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, an organisation that represents over a million Americans of Baltic heritage. It was instrumental in lobbying the US government to maintain its non-recognition policy of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, and upon re-independence successfully lobbied for NATO admission. The organisation is significant enough that the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, no less, have delivered keynote addresses at the Committee's annual conferences. Meets WP:NONPROFIT in that their scope is clearly international, and the organization’s longevity, size of membership and major achievements have been reported by multiple independent reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, an organization that claims to represent Americans of Baltic heritage. (My grandfather was Lithuanian; if they represent ME, why haven't I ever heard of them?) That national leaders have delivered speeches there is a bit fat WP:NOTINHERITED. If they've allegedly had an impact on this, and had major achievements that, then there should be reliable sources giving the outfit significant coverage, right? Where is it then? Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, given that a quarter of Americans don't know the Earth actually circles the sun[45], the fact that you haven't heard of JBANC isn't that significant. It's a joint committee which includes the Lithuanian American Council. The mention of Baltic state presidents addressing the committee's conferences has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED, but rather to demonstrate the scope of their activities is international in scale, which is one of the criteria for notability per WP:NONPROFIT. There is significant coverage in multiple sources in regard to the organisation and its role in lobbying the US government on Baltic issues, which I am in the process of adding. --Nug (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is irrelevant how many people the organisation represents, but there are enough sources to demonstrate Notability. For example, under Lithuanian name "Jungtinis Amerikos baltų tautinis komitetas" it is mentioned in [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] (in turn, a review of a book, presumably describing the organisation in more detail). Different variants of the name exist, there are likely to be some Latvian and Estonian sources as well. Under the English name there are mentions like [51] (an article dedicated to the organisation; independence of the source is somewhat questionable - it seems to be written by one of its leaders, but in a journal that is likely to be independent of the subject), [52]... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons listed above AND they aren't an official government organization and few have heard of it, so fails WP:NCORP Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confide) 15:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBC News[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Earlier PROD removed without improvement to refs. Searches reveal nothing more than own web site, tangential mentions and social media. Cited refs fail to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets all of the point of WP:GNG. It has a vast coverage in the Internet. It has right to be a stand alone article in Wikipedia. Rafi (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-The prod was placed after a problematic user removed references. I undid his revision and added the sources back to the article. After which I removed the prod, because a prod can be contested. The nominator sent the page to AFD 8 minutes after the removal of the prod. I further improved the sources. The article is about a national news network and the sources are from various Bangladeshi news organizations including major newspapers. The article is notable and sources do show that.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Press reports of journalists being attacked etc coupled with press releases about the opening of a news station do not amount to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ansh 666 22:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sabrosky[edit]

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

No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College should be enough for WP:MILPERSON criteria 6 and 8 and at least one of his papers was reasonably influential. His predictions and opinions were routinely cited in the press in the 1980s and during the First Gulf War.
NOTE: This article was fully protected recently due to persistent disruptive editing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the list of qualifications for MILPERSON and the closest qualification I see is #6 "Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them." The article does not currently establish this, so maybe it needs a few more references. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why being "Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College" makes him notable via #6 or #8. This academic rank seems no more intrinsically notable than being Dean of the Faculty at Harvey Mudd or Head of the English Department as ASU. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not comparable. I would say he passes NPROF as a director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university) - the Army War College is not a university, its a graduate level program only for military officers who have been selected.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word there is "independent", not "university." The SSI is not independent, it is a subordinate part of the Army War College. So that part of NPROF does not apply to this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing MILPERSON-6/8 or NPROF is borderline. I see (manual calculation) a h-index of around 10 and 1 major publication (Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war - 166 citations, the rest have 32, 28, 26, 26, 5 less than 20, the rest less than 10). What is of concern here is WP:NFRINGE in regards to his 9/11 and Mossad operation theories - coverage of this seems to be scant and mostly passing (at least in reputable publishing outlets....) - and not in depth - e.g. there is this and on the other hand [53][54] which support this - but there isn't enough in-depth mainstream coverage of this to cover the fringe aspect in a NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Nothing in the article is fringe. The unrelated fact that fringe theories can't be covered in an NPOV manner is a tautology, not a ground for deletion. Being Director of the Strategic Studies Institute is definitely enough for MILHIST 8. I don't know the details of his "theories" but given the coverage I have found, I'm inclined to believe that more sources exist about Sabrosky that aren't accessible.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject's pre-retirement career at the war college was entirely mainstream and covered in a NPOV manner in the article. However, the subject, following his retirement, is to a large extent known for his 9/11 views - which I do not see how we can cover in a NPOV manner given the lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources on this (see WP:NFRINGE). His prior academic career is borderline - but the NFRINGE issues (which also seem to be causing BLP/vandalism issues on the page) - sets a higher notability bar. Note that fringe theories and promoters can be covered in a NPOV manner (in fact - we have several BLP subjects that are notable just for that) - however to do so requires good independent sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFRINGE is completely irrelevant, this is a BLP. I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy theory issues are contributing to vandalism on the page, but both 9/11 conspiracy theories and BLP are DS areas. If all it takes to get an article deleted is a couple of months of bad behavior we won't have much of an encyclopedia left. That said, I don't particularly mind either way, because it is a minor article and notability is borderline, if it requires this level of policing and attention it probably isn't worth it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said about 6 times that the reason you do not find many sources on me is that the Wikipedia collective excludes my middle name. I learned two years ago that using "Alan Sabrosky" misses almost all of my military and government and academic work, but using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" brings all of that up - including a lot of sources. Having said that, I personally think the "Alan Sabrosky" article as it exists should be deleted. notability aside - it is factually inaccurate in several places and a best demeaning. If the Wikipedia editors feel that what comes up on "Alan Ned Sabrosky" merits an article, I would be gratified (and I think what was briefly put up in late May might give some idea of that), but I would rather have nothing than what is there now. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the books should pass notability [55] and the academic work has been cited enough to be incorporated into existing articles. That might be another option to preserve notable encyclopedic content and resolve the fringe theory/blp/vandalism issues of this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: A keep (selective content) but rename to the notable book on alliances would be a good option, and would place the later fringe stuff clearly out of scope. Suggestions on which title?Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm honestly not sure about the specialized notability criteria in this case, but in practice we usually keep articles about academics where there is significant published discussion of their work; incorporating the middle name as suggested, I see about 3 pages of potentially useful JSTOR hits, including two reviews and a summary of his degrees and the title of his dissertation (predating the Army War College). That plus the number of citations on Google Scholar make me pretty confident I could construct a summary of his book publications from third-party sources, so that box is checked. I did not find independent sources for his birthdate and birthplace; Docbrosk1941's proposed material on the article talk page (very similar to the May 13 version of the article, so much so that I wonder whether there is an official published biography being used as model, but Docbrosk1941's version cites sources) cites a regional Who's Who, but my understanding is that we don't cite Who's Who as sole source for biographical details in a BLP because of its self-sourced nature; in any case I don't believe I have access to it. (Is there a faculty page from any of the teaching/administrative positions, perhaps now only preserved at the Wayback Machine, that might state year and place of birth in addition to attesting to the non-military academic posts?) So the article would be mostly a summary of academic work, which is not unusual for living academics. (We often have to wait for an obituary to fill in biographical details, since newspapers rarely write articles about academics, and I imagine military researchers are all the more likely not to have garnered such coverage. In any event, I didn't find any.) What puts it over the top for me is the ongoing coverage of "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond". True, it's not extended coverage, but it's widespread enough that I believe notability has been achieved. And I agree with Seraphim System that neutral and not excessive coverage of that aspect of his career is possible and that we should therefore seek to give the reader a balanced article rather than deleting it. (I would set to and demonstrate, but the article is full protected. If I have time, I'll draft something in user space.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Using the new name, the only work by Sabrosky with more than 100 citations in Google Scholar is his book on alliances. Taking a closer look at some of these, I did not find people citing it as influential or important but saw its inclusion in footnotes and citing others who disputed his claims there. I am also not seeing mainstream coverage of the article "Treason, Betrayal, and Deceit" (unless you count a brief mention in Washington Times as mainstream coverage,) just a lot of POV pushers using it to vilify Sabrosky or Israel, based on their POVs. 16:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair and balanced assessments. Please note I am NOT a retired Marine officer, I did not retire and was never an officer. If anyone does decide to rework (& protect) the article with the extended name, I could email them copies of relevant documentation (e.g., DD214 after 10 years in the Marines, Army War College diploma & Chair info & award at the completion of my service there) - that way you would not have to wait for my obit (which I would like to defer as long as possible).Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the article is full-protected, I've made a proposed rewrite at User:Yngvadottir/Alan Sabrosky rewrite. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful is participants could review and discuss the proposed rewrite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: as 78:26 said, it would be helpful if participants examined the proposed rewrite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - addressing re-write - the rewritten article in and of itself is reasonable, however it does not demonstrate that Sabrosky passes the WP:NFRINGE bar. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is covered therein by:
1. ref13 - Alan Sabrosky himself on Salem-News(!) - not an acceptable source per WP:FRIND.
2. ref14 - The Forward (a decent source) - that gives Sabrosky 14 words in a list - not INDEPTH.
3. ref15 - American Free Press (RS?) - gives Sabrosky less than a paragraph - not INDEPTH.
4. ref16 - Commentary Magazine - give Sabrosky a paragraph and a half - not INDEPTH.
5. ref17 - ADL - this is an in-depth report by a respected organization, however we often view SPLC/ADL reports as primaryish.
6. ref18 - JPOST reporting on ADL's report (which is a good sign regarding the ADL's report - it isn't a tree falling in a forest...) - however while Sabrosky is given as an example by JPost - he gets a short paragraph (around 4 lines).

To sum up, while I applaud the quality of Yngvadottir's rewrite, it does not address the NFRINGE issue - A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.. As for the sources in the rewrite covering his pre-conspiracy career - refs1 to refs12 do not cover Sabrosky himself in depth and independently, but rather are either self-written or cover (or in some cases - just reference) works by Sabrosky. Sabrosky himself does not get an automatic pass via SOLDIER/PROF. I could see how we could write an article on one of Sabrosky's reviewed works (the alliances book) - as it has been reviewed independently.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:NFRINGE bar? - this is a BLP. His work is highly-cited enough to pass NPROF.Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a BLP is known, to a large extent, as a "conspiracy theorist"(per [56] and several other recent sources - non of which cover him INDEPTH, but do apply the label in their own voice) - NFRINGE is relevant to the BLP. He has a h-index of 10. One fairly well cited work - Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war (166 citations per scholar) - the rest being in the 1-30 range of citations - does not pass NPROF.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir's rewrite Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ certainly fails WP:PROF and WP:SOLDIER. Also fails WP:BASIC because there is no profile, not even enough in the way of INDEPTH coverage in the articles that mention him to source a basic bio (where was he born, where did he serve). Fails WP:AUTHOR because little note has been taken of work he has published. That leaves us with the tiny cluster of articles about accusations he flung at Jewish Americans in 2017 and the quesiton of whether it passes WP:NFRINGE. It does not look like enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Turns out he held a named chair at a major institution. See below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think votes based on NFRINGE should be deweighted. This is not a standalone article about a fringe theory. In cases where there are likely additional inaccessible sources for a subject that is most likely notable, the usual practice is to keep the articles. This is especially true in the case of notable persons from the 80s or early 90s where additional sources are less likely to be found by searching Google. For a former Director of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, there is a high probably that additional sources exist, and also that the Google Scholar citations count is not fully accurate and should not be taken as authoritative. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "base" my iVote on NFRINGE. I wrote that since he fails WP:PROF, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:AUTHOR, and I will add that he also fails WP:ANYBIO, his claim to notability hangs on the notability under WP:NFRINGE of an accusation he flung.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think fiat statements that something fails NPROF or NAUTHOR or NSOLDIER that doesn't give reasons for this or address any of the substantive issues raised during the discussion are unhelpful. All you said it "certainly fails WP:PROF." You should also tell us why you think so. Icewhiz in his above vote also relies on the citation count, but in the discussion above there are other NPROF criteria discussed that neither of you have addressed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is on those citing the SNG. Sabrosky has no grounds for most SOLDIER criteria, and SOLDIER(8) would be a big stretch for one 100 citation book - note that SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of notability anyway - it is not a SNG. NAUTHOR for one book with a 100 citations? A stretch. NPROF is the only SNG with weight. evaluating NPROF(1) the h-index (weighted per field) is relevant - and 10 wouldn't be a pass. NPROF (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), and (9) are quite clearly not relevant. His academic position is not sufficients for NPROF(5)(6). What we are left with is an individual promoting fringe theories that does not have INDEPTH coverage leading to GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree about NPROF 6. Director of the SSI is a very important academic position in an institution that is not a University. According to the Library of Congress SSI "publishes national security and strategic research and analysis which serves to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between the military and academia." In fact, other directors of the SSI would pass notability under NPROF 6 also. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. If he held the top level post at the War College it probably would a PROF6 pass. We might have had something to discuss if he were head of SSI (a sub branch of the college). However he did not head the SSI (per SSI - plain director) - he was "director of studies" - someone who answers to the director.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't anywhere in the link you cited. Sabrosky is even cited by David Petraeus. His earlier work was hugely influential - one of his essays from the 1980s was cited by David Petraeus in 2010 (while he was a 4 star general, he became CIA director in 2011) [57]. He still passes NPROF under various criteria. Google Scholar isn't even picking up the Petraeus cite - while Google scholar can be helpful to support notability if the cites are high quality, it shouldn't be relied on for deletion, especially where the subject is most likely notable.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would be stronger if you brought the sources that you assert support notability to his page, with the passages that show its significance. But it for a single article to establish notability, it would have to have had quite an impact; such as reshaping an entire academic field, or starting something in the real world.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was first published in 1986, and then reprinted in 2010 one year before Petraeus became CIA director. This was Petraeus' doctoral dissertation - his ideas of course became quite influential when he was selected to serve as director the the CIA ushering in this COIN business. The cited essay of Sabrosky's is Preparing for Low Intensity Conflict Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is it cited merely, or is there a substantive engagement with Sabrosky's argument in the body of the text, and, of there is, would you be willing to copy paste the material here? I ask because a mere citation in an PhD thesis does not usually mean all that much. This is because in the social sciences in your dissertation you are expected to cite every previous article on the narrow topic you have chosen, significant or not. It's the done thing. It is not at all an indication that the cited papers are individually significant. It is more of an academic exercise, a sort of high-level homework assignment to show that the student has learned to thoroughly search the literature before addressing a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source confirming he was a named chair at the Army War College which I posted below. If there are no objections I'm going to collapse some of this extended discussion to make life easier for the closing admin. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he Sabrosky either is or used to be a columnist for something called Veterans Today, a FRINGE, hate-site about which a series of Wikipedia pages have been created, and deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability is not inherited. There are no sources for Veterans Today except one SPLC article. However if you go back to pre-9/11 sources - around the First Gulf War and a bit earlier, most likely additional sources do exist for Sabrosky. Sources from that time period are less likely to be indexed in Google Scholar or found through Google Books or a web search. We don't delete articles about likely notable people because they've written articles for non-notable blog sites. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you refuting things I never suggested? My point is that most of what has been noticed about him in SECONDARY sources is that he is spews hate-speech and is a conspiracy theorist; I mentioned Veterans Today only specifically because being a "columnist" for a FRINGE website does not confer notability, yet this is what comes up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do not keep articles because somebody guesses that more sources exist. I did a little searching in Proquest news archive, what turns up are sources establishing that he is a minor league 9/11 conspiracy theorist. If we keep the article we would have to 1.) rewrite the lede and the text demonstrating that his notablity - such as it is - lies in his status as a conspiracy theorist; and, 2.) find a WP:RS for the statement that he was "Director of Studies of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute" (it appears to be accurate, but also brief. It would be useful to know the dates of his service in Carlisle.) But being a minor FRINGE theorist doesn't him notable. And I ocntinue to think that he fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check He did not "coauthor" the book Prisoners of War?: Nation-States in the Modern Era., as the aritcle states. He was co-editor with Charles S. Gochman of a collection of articles published as a book, which seems to have gotten zero reviews and has been cited only a handful of times. Co-editing such a volume confers little if any notability. Apologizing for the multiple posts, but when someone argues for keeping a bio on someone who looks completely WP:MILL to me I can't help double checking to see if I'm missing something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys not know what SSI is? There is already RS cited for his position as director. WP:MILL is a joke. See the above comment about an essay of Sabrosky's from the 1980's cited by David Petraeus in 2010. Google Scholar isn't even picking it up. Why do you find it so hard to believe that additional sources exist? You should also strike the above BLP violations, they are not ok here just because it is AfD. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the article would have to be sourced to articles that use the phrasing I use above, including, Oberlin Students Receive Anti-Semitic Email from Self-Proclaimed ‘Truthseeker’, 9/11 Anniversary Sparks New Wave of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories] and similar. The conspiracy theories and hate-speech are the sole aspect of his career that has gotten any attention in WP:RS. Just not enough attention to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way, the notability of an article is not determined by some demands that editors make about its content at AfD. Also noting this article was only nominated for AfD after it needed full protection for persistent BLP violations.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was not director of SSI (yes, I know who they are... And they are fairly small - around 20 faculty) - he was "director of studies" - one of a few "director of" positions that are below the director.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will futrher note that several bona fida directors of the SSI, including the present one I believe, are redlinked.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another 1980s source I don't have full access to right now. [58] - Based on what I have found out in a somewhat rushed manner, it seems that Sabrosky was influential in Pentagon policy up to at least around the First Gulf War era. His publication on Low-intensity conflict was cited by David Petraeus in 1986 in paper which was republished in 2010 shortly before Petraeus became CIA Director. Sabrosky is routinely cited in documents that are not indexed by Google Scholar like [59] this DTIC Low Intensity Conflict: A Selected Bibliography in which he is cited twice. I think based on these two additional sources, it is not unlikely that more sources exist and that Sabrosky's work was influential at the policy level. I think we should at least give this article some time before deletion to see what other sources can be found. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the snippet from the Johns Hopkins source he was also a named chair the "General of the Army MacArthur Chair of Research" at the Army War College - there is further content that I don't have full access to right now, but a named chair position should be enough to pass NPROF. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And is the Army War College a "major institution of higher education and research"? This is far from obvious.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an accredited institution for graduate level studies, I mistakenly thought it was not a university because at universities college is colloquially used for the undergraduate school. Why would you think it wasn't?Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Army War College is one of our great research institutions and graduate faculties - in a limited field, but so are several of our elite post-graduate studies and research schools, such as Rockefeller University. It is an honor to be appointed to attend, and an honor to be invited to teach at Carlisle. There is a "General Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research" at the War College. If Sabrosky held it, he automatically passes WP:PROF. We need a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the WP:RS above, but here it is again: [60] You can search it for Alan Sabrosky, it's on Page xiii.

Yes, and in several other sources, although the phrasing of the title of that chair does vary. Switching my iVote to Keep as per WP:PROF. He's not the first academic to turn into an advocate for a FRINGE cause. Article will need major revisions for accuracy and to give WP:DUE to the coverage his crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy has gotten.E.M.Gregory (talk)

@E.M.Gregory: Have you looked at the rewrite in my user space, or just at the article as it currently is? (I believe it's still full-protected.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SentinelOne[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional. The various listings as "visionary" all derive from the same source:PR. The other references are just routine financing and similar., and do not satisfy WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a surprisingly large number of references in this Google Scholar search Perhaps an article could be built using the Google Scholar references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Did you find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to not have any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep found what appears to be an independent review. Seems to be [some citing] of its analysis of attacks on its website, other cites do that also. This article may look interesting but I dont have access. May be WP:TOOSOON. Dont care for the promotional aspects.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response This review in scmagazine is a review of a product and not the company. The topic is the company and the article contains no information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The ieee.org citation is actually citing a blog post by Sentinal One and this fails WP:RS as well providing no information on the company thereby also failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, the "interesting paper" only mentions SentinalOne in the context of Application programming interface (API) calls, often used to characterize the behavior of a program, are a common input choice for a classifier and used by products such as SentinelOne. and Some real-world next generation antimalware products (such as SentinelOne) are hybrid classifiers and are therefore mentions-in-passing and also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A highly promotional piece on an un-and-coming company that has not achieved anything significant just yet (apart from raising venture funding). That's an insufficient claim of significance. Sources is mostly routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 25 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interwetten Summer Cup 2018[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable competition and instead seems to be little more than WP:RUNOFTHEMILL preseason matches. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable friendly tournament. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 26 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esau Wood[edit]

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

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such since 2007 without improvement in the intervening 11 years) article about an acting-school exercise, without much context for why an encyclopedia article about it would be needed. As always, we don't keep unsourced articles just because the topic exists, especially if we can only write four sentences of content about it. The text of the exercise itself represents more than half of the entire article — but while I'm sure it's in the public domain and not a copyright violation per se, an article which consists primarily of the primary source text of the subject, rather than properly sourced analysis about the subject, is still unencyclopedic regardless of whether it's a copyright problem or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sourcing to show this is notable. This could with proper historical context be developed into an encyclopedic article, but at present it is just a dictionary article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 10:27, 25 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veit Renn[edit]

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

Seemingly not substantial referencing enough to meet WP:NMUSIC, additionally quite a bit of seemingly promotional (unsourced) fluff. A quick news search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just going on the record with this. Concur with everything Drewmutt points out. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 31 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium Resources[edit]

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

Has now changed its name to Westwater Resources, Inc. however remains a non-notable company per WP:NCORP, besides customary stock coverage Uhooep (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : this South American company fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete: No verifiable claim of notability.~~ — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete !vote struck and reversed due to analyst reports posted by User:Cunard, which are also unrelated to mining Navajo territory— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This item might help establish notability, but some sites that report on resource stocks are paid to do so by the companies they cover. I do not know whether this is true for Mining Feeds. If you search for the company's full name, including "Inc.", you will filter out the more generic hits for "uranium resources" that don't relate to this company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in The New York Times of the company's plans to mine in traditional Navajo territory: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/health/a-doctor-s-journal-navajo-miners-battle-a-deadly-legacy-of-yellow-dust.html And a three-paragraph mention in https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/19/business/market-place-uranium-industry-hurt-by-imports.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviewing the above, I've managed to find a few more sources mentioning the company, all relating to mining in Navajo territory, Navajo Group to Take Uranium Mine Challenge to Human Rights Commission, Abandoned uranium mines continue to haunt Navajos on reservation, Protect our sacred water! and Texas Sees Renewed Push for Uranium Mining. If these incidents are the only source of notability, perhaps a merge with Uranium mining and the Navajo people could be appropriate? — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports
1. This 5 April 2012 article^archive.is from StreetInsider notes:
  Dahlman Rose initiates coverage on (NASDAQ: URRE) with a Buy. PT $1.45.
  Analyst, Anthony Young, said, "URRE possesses the eleventh-largest known U3O8 resource base in the world, has the ability to commence production in late-2013, and could become the second-largest U3O8 producer in the US by 2016."
2. This 14 June 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
  Roth Capital reiterated coverage yesterday on Uranium Resources Inc. (URRE) with a Buy rating and $4.00 price target.
  Roth Capital reiterated coverage yesterday on Uranium Resources Inc. (URRE) with a Buy rating and $4.00 price target.
  ...
  Roth’s analyst Joseph Reagor points out that he continue to view URRE as an asset value play as its large portfolio of uranium projects provides significant value.
  In the report, the analyst noted, “we base our valuation of URRE on a sum of the parts analysis. We begin by estimating a cash burn of $15.0 million in 2014 as we do not anticipate a return to production during 2014. We note this estimate is slightly above the company’s guidance of a $1 million per month burn rate. To this we add current cash of $1.1 million and subtract current debt of $3.2 million as of year-end 2013. We also add $9.5 million (net of fees) for the announced equity raise in February 2014. For URRE’s physical assets, we assign a value of $24.7 million or a 20% discount to the balance sheet carrying value. We note that in today’s regulatory environment it would take five plus years to permit and construct a uranium processing facility. We also assign a value of $0.664 million or $1.00 per pound for URRE’s Texas resources and $71.3 million or $0.50 per pound for URRE’s non NI 43-101 compliant resources. This nets a total valuation of $99.6 million or $4.06 per share. Therefore, we are maintaining our Buy rating and $4.00 price target”.
3. This 12 August 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
  In a research note released August 11, Roth Capital analyst Joe Reagor maintained a Buy rating on Uranium Resources (URRE) with a $4.00 price target, following the company’s second-quarter earnings.
  Reagor wrote: “The company delivered on its goal of reducing costs during the quarter, showing a burn rate of only $1.1 million per month. We continue to view URRE as an asset value play based on our sum-of-the-parts analysis.” The analyst added, “URRE’s cost reductions are clearly taking hold as the company’s cash balance declined only $3.2 million, excluding the $3 million drawn on its credit facility. Additionally, URRE announced it achieved its goal of reducing its cash burn rate to under $1 million per month during July. Management is clearly working to limit nonessential spending while the uranium prices remain suppressed, in our view.”
4. This 11 September 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
  In a research report issued yesterday, Roth Capital analyst Joe Reagor maintained a Buy rating on Uranium Resources (NASDAQ:URRE) with a price target of $4, following the company’s announcement of an asset exchange agreement with Rio Grande Resources.
  Reagor wrote, “Under the terms of the agreement, URRE would acquire Texas properties totaling 8,834 acres in exchange for two parcels from its Rocha Honda asset in New Mexico. The Texas assets are all located within 75 miles of URRE’s existing processing facilities in Texas allowing URRE to bring these assets into production faster than it could Rocha Honda, in our view. We anticipate this will result in a reduction in overall resources for URRE, but we believe the asset locations in Texas are more advantageous. The Texas assets URRE is acquiring have historical resources, which will need to be upgraded to meet NI 43-101 requirements."
  Reagor continued, “We anticipate URRE will show a resource reduction at Rocha Honda, but we expect the additional resources in Texas and locations of these assets to outweigh the resource reduction. As a result, we have elected to make no adjustments to our estimates or valuation. We continue to view URRE as a value opportunity given the significant resources it holds.”
5. This 7 November 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
  In a research report published Friday, Roth Capital analyst Joe Reagor reiterated a Buy rating on Uranium Resources (NASDAQ:URRE), and reduced his price target to $3.50 (from $4.00), which represents a potential upside of 80% from where the stock is currently trading.
  Reagor explained his new target saying, “We believe URRE has enough cash and availability on its ATM to fund another 12 months, but in order to start production in Texas or to fund corporate expenditures beyond that point, URRE would need to raise additional capital. As a result of this expectation, we are cutting our price target to $3.50 from $4.00. We are also maintaining our Buy rating as we believe URRE’s depressed market value presents a value opportunity.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uranium Resources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from ROTH Capital Partners and Dahlman Rose (an investment bank acquired by Cowen Group in 2013) provide substantial coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP among others, and the company isn't even worth $100mil. Little to no coverage of the company on news in recent years. Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company meets WP:NCORP because WP:NCORP says analyst reports can be used to establish notability. This company has received coverage in analyst reports published in 2012 and 2014. Notability is not temporary. It also has received additional coverage in reliable sources as pointed out by Eastmain and Alpha3031. That the company does not have a market value of $100 million has no bearing on the company's notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability, "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable".
Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 August 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. Cunard's sources seem to just raise this beyond the bar. ansh 666 22:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De Sarthe Gallery[edit]

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

This business apparently does not satisfy our new and improved notability requirements for companies, and probably didn't meet the old ones either. It carries on the routine business of art dealing, showing works of art in the hope of selling some of them. Some of these works are by notable artists, and so may receive some press coverage, in which there may be some passing mention of the gallery. But a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. I tried to rewrite this article, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to say anything much about it. Even the South China Morning Post article, which is specifically about the gallery, has very little solid information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I looked at the article as it now stands and came to the opposite conclusion: the sources you found have given enough verifiable detail from reliable sources about this art gallery, over a sufficiently long period of time (2014 - 2018!) to push it over the threshold of notability. Weak keep. Deryck C. 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers—stop burdening us with the same nonsense that you are posting at so many of these discussions: "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building." That tedious nonsense is largely irrelevant yet you've posted it or a variation of it not only at this article but here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all of those articles were deleted, because what Justlettersandnumbers said was accurate. Please do not badger this AfD as you have done at other AfDs. If you keep up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT and walls of text, I would say you are headed for a topic ban. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the available online sources
[61] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.

[62] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.

[63] does verify that de Sarthe participated in Art Silicon Valley San Francisco (not a notable art fair), with the artists mentioned, some who are indeed very notable but not typically represented by de Sarthe, like Robert Indiana (Paul Kasmin Gallery), Yayoi Kusama (Gagosian Gallery) and Bernar Venet (Paul Kasmin).

[64] Is used to show that the gallery participated in the Art Basel Hong Kong art fair quotes Pascal de Sarthe as saying "We did very well last year, and it was repeated this year", "We have seen a lot of money coming to the art market" and "Chinese investors and collectors understand that art is a tangible asset." (Note that ABHK had 231 exhibitors in 2105, 239 in 2016, 241 in 2017 and 248 in 2018. Calling that "hundreds" to trivialize inclusion in the selection is not NPOV). But the information provided her is useless, and we already have a list of participants. I'm not convinced that participating in ABHK is even of sufficient encyclopedic interest to merit mention in the article.

[65] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.

[66] This article discusses and contextualizes the selection of de Sarthe and is a good example of independent reporting and analysis. This isn't just the gallery talking about itself. Interestingly, it shows that de Sarthe particpated in the 2014 edition of ABHK, the so the statement that it supports is incorrect.

[67] Not independent, just the gallery talking about itself.

In summary, I see one source that I think is any good, but it fails to provide enough information to create a comprehensive article. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia. Until we get better sources: ~~delete~~, without prejudice to recreation by an unconnected editor once those sources emerge. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources have now been presented by Cunard below. Keep. Vexations (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate reliable sources to establish notability, per Vexation's excellent analysis.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Cunard's sources below.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

96.127.242.226, did you also check out my remarks on those sources? -The Gnome (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous discussions have been tainted by personal attacks. If you want to topic ban somebody, go to WP:ANI and make your case. Otherwise, just focus on the merits of the article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations—you are evaluating an article that has already been gutted by Justlettersandnumbers. They started dismantling the article on June 10 and nominated it for deletion on July 2. Also, you write that "I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia." While I agree with the sentiment that "It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia", I wish to point out that that alone is not a reason for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we ought to consider the entire history of the article in a deletion discussion. I don't think we need to discuss https://www.desarthe.com/about.html, that should be obvious. I suppose could review https://www.artsy.net/show/de-sarthe-gallery-de-sarthe-gallery-at-art-basel-in-hong-kong-2017, a source that Justlettersandnumbers removed, but I think it's unnecessary. Artsy is there to "Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience" per https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships. As for Ocula, https://ocula.com/art-galleries/de-sarthe-gallery, same thing: For a monthly fee of only US$125 Ocula offers members a fully managed and comprehensive profile with features designed to raise international visibility, increase visitor engagement and deliver qualified sales leads on artworks. Did I miss anything else? Vexations (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop (talk · contribs), do you have any thoughts about the sources I provided since the relisting admin would like editors to focus on the sources? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The subject lacks sufficiently convincing evidence of independent notability. The fact that the gallery is employing a paid contributor (notice I did not say "professional editor") lends more weight to the deletion argument. I mean, the article is keeling over as it is, yet aren't paid editors supposedly niftier than us plebeians?-The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article may not have been remunerated. They requested deletion per {t|db-author}}. We wouldn't be here had Atlantic306 not declined the deletion as "may be notable". See [68] Vexations (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lau, Joyce (2011-03-31). "Chinese Master, Modern Brush". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Pascal de Sarthe, who has been dealing in Zao works for about 15 years, had to ask longtime clients for loans to cobble together 10 Zao paintings for the debut of his new gallery, de Sarthe Fine Art, in Hong Kong last month. The night before the opening, only three were left unsold.
  Mr. de Sarthe, a French-born dealer who was based in the United States before his recent move to Asia. ... The show, “Zao Wou-ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s,” will be on view at the gallery through April 29.
  ...
  The de Sarthe show tracks Mr. Zao’s evolution through the 1950s and ’60s. Two of the earlier pieces, “Bateaux au Port” (1952) and “Corrida” (1953), are still clearly figurative, showing the sketched outlines of sailing ships and bullfighting. These are also from Mr. Zao’s “Klee period.”
  ...
  The de Sarthe gallery joins a parade of new foreign-run galleries in Hong Kong’s Central district that specialize in blue-chip modern and contemporary artists. In the last year and a half, Ben Brown of London, Larry Gagosian of New York and Edouard Malingue of Paris have opened galleries. But de Sarthe is the first to open with a significant show by an Asian artist.
2. Wang, Nadya (2017-05-29). "International art dealers in Asia: De Sarthe Gallery, Hong Kong on Asian art". Art Republik. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  In 2012, after a long and successful run in first Paris then America as gallerists, Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe opened a gallery in Hong Kong in Central, motivated by the time they were already spending in Asia for their business. Earlier this year, they moved to a bigger space at Wong Chuk Hang, attracted, as with other galleries which have opened in the area, by the lower rents and the easier access with the opening of the MTR South Island Line at the end of 2016.
  De Sarthe Gallery has, in the past 6 years, solidified their place in the Hong Kong art scene with headlining exhibitions, beginning with ‘Zao Wou-Ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s’, following up with the sophomore show of American artist David LaChapelle, and continuing with other well-received solo as well as group shows, such as ‘Gutai’ and ‘Pioneers of Chinese Modern Paintings in Paris’.
  ...
  De Sarthe Gallery has, through the years, been active in both the secondary and primary market, dealing in works by international modern masters as well as supporting emerging contemporary artists. Pascal’s son, Vincent, has taken up the mantle for the latter in Beijing, running a separate De Sarthe Gallery at Caochangdi, set up in 2014 as a platform for emerging Chinese artists.
  This includes detailed analysis of De Sarthe's history. The article notes that the June 2017 edition of the quarterly publishes an interview with de Sarthe.
3. Wee, Darryl (2015-04-06). "de Sarthe Gallery Unveils New Space in Beijing". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Hong Kong-based stalwart de Sarthe Gallery, which represents a diverse roster of international artists with a particular focus on French Impressionism and modern and postwar Chinese painting, opened a new space in Beijing’s Caochangdi gallery district on April 4.
  The inaugural exhibition at de Sarthe Beijing is devoted to the work of the Beijing-born multimedia and installation artist Zhou Wendou, who completed advanced studies in fine art at the University of Complutense in Madrid after graduating from the Central Academy of Art and Design in Beijing.
4. Bouchara, Claire (2016-10-07). "De Sarthe Gallery to Open New Space in South Island Cultural District in HK". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Top-tier gallery de Sarthe has announced its expansion to Hong Kong’s new up-and-coming art district, Wong Chuk Hang. It will join the area’s 26 other art galleries, including Rossi & Rossi and Pékin Fine Arts.
  With two established branches in Beijing and Hong Kong, gallery owner Pascal de Sarthe has decided to invest in the city’s South Island Cultural District (SICD) “to embrace the energy of the area and open a gallery space that is unrivaled in Hong Kong.” The gallery will move into a much more spacious location inside the Global Trade Square building towards the end of the year, joining Japanese gallery Whitestone.
5. Forrest, Nicholas (2013-08-21). "What Chinese Galleries Will Show at Sydney Contemporary Art Fair". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe launched de Sarthe Gallery in Paris in 1977 and moved to America in 1981. In 2011 they opened a space in Hong Kong and were recently joined in the business by their son Vincent who is based in Beijing. For Sydney Contemporary de Sarthe will present a group exhibition featuring Gilbert & George, Richard Long, Lin Jingjing, Mariko Mori, Zhao Jinhe, Zhou Wendou, Bernar Venet, and Wang Guofeng.
6. Wee, Darryl (2017-12-08). "Asian Expansion". Art+Auction. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Vincent de Sarthe, son of veteran dealer Pascal de Sarthe, will serve as director of the new Beijing outpost of Hong Kong– based de Sarthe Gallery, which opened in the Caochangdi arts district in April. The show “Borderless,” which runs through the end of this month, is devoted to the work of Beijingborn Zhou Wendou, who attended graduate school in Madrid and continues to live there part-time.
7. Lai, Olivia (2017-07-21). "Wong Chuk Hang: Ultimate Guide". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  Originally founded in Paris in 1997, Hong Kong’s de Sarthe Gallery is an impressive 9,820 sq ft art space that represents and exhibits a diverse spectrum of international artists from important French impressionists to Asian and western contemporary artists, as well as emerging talent. The team at de Sarthe really knows how to utilise the space and present some incredibly innovative exhibitions.
  The 1997 date is a typo. It should be 1977.
8. Kareem, Nazvi (2014-05-15). "De Sarthe gallery revives French connection with Chinese artists". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-07-24.
  The article notes:
  
  When de Sarthe Gallery sought a place at Art Basel Hong Kong, they wanted to continue a dialogue that started in the early 20th century between Paris-influenced Chinese artists and their Western abstract counterparts.
  The Ice House Street gallery in Central was keen to show how Western art shaped these Chinese artists who worked in the French capital and inspired a yearning to break away from the old Chinese traditions in their artworks.
  De Sarthe's powerful narrative and historical journey was a perfect fit for judges of the Galleries sector of Art Basel Hong Kong, who looked for thematic presentations on the most important developments from Asia's art scene over the past 100 years. De Sarthe was thus accepted as one of more than 170 galleries featured in the main Galleries section of the fair.
9. Chu, Chloe (2018). "Hong Kong". ArtAsiaPacific.
  More information about the source:
  ArtAsiaPacific. 2018 supplement, p103-107. 5p. 6 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph, 1 Map.
  Here is the article's abstract:
  The article offers information on Carrie Lam who became Hong Kong's first female chief executive, supported by votes from the performing arts and culture subsectors. Topics discussed include role of Home Affairs Bureau in providing funds to art and culture programs for 2017 to 2018, renovation and reopening of the Hong Kong Museum of Art, and distribution of grants for artists and nonprofit organizations by the Arts Development Council.
  The article notes:
  New to the area is de Sarthe Gallery, which moved from Central in 2016 and began programming in its new space in 2017. The gallery transformed 929 square meters to resemble an airport terminal in the imagined People's Republic of Dreamland, for "Takeoff" (9/16–10/14), a solo show by Chinese artist Lin Jingjing. Earlier in the year, a rock-climbing wall was installed as part of Andrew Luk's one-week presentation titled "Practice" (9/2–9), concluding the gallery's inaugural artist residency program.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow de Sarthe Gallery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we justify a gallery's notability? We only have WP:ORG as a guide. And the guideline states that the trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The guideline goes on to explicitly demand deep or significant coverage which means overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization. We do not have this in the links painstakingly (and admirably) gathered by Cunard above. All we have are incidental mentions of the gallery, with almost all the texts being about something else, an artist, the owner, etc.

The NYT archived text "Chinese Master, Modern Brush", for example, refers to artist Zao Wou-Ki.

We have "International art dealers in Asia" published in the "luxury lifestyle" magazine Luxuo, which is a cut-down version of an interview with the owner reading like an infomercial ("the gallery’s pioneering trajectory in presenting trendsetting curatorial ideas and content," etc) more than anything.

Then, there's an interview with Vincent de Sarthe, family member and Beijing gallery director, from a source upon whose Wikireliability I will leave others to decide: "After laying off staff, owner Louise Blouin outsourced editorial content to India but to make it seem as if there were still a 'cosmopolitan' staff, articles were given bylines with generic international names." (Source, but also see Louise Blouin Media#Controversies.) And so on and so forth.

We do not have verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; those are an awful lot of tangential and churnalistic mentions of the gallery, but the collective impact doesn't get me to WP:ORG. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vexations and 96.127.242.226, for changing from "delete" to "keep" after I posted the sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
The sources I linked above provide "deep coverage" about the subject. They provide analysis of the company. They make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization".
Art+Auction published multiple articles about de Sarthe Gallery that make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Here is information closely paraphrased or copied from the articles:
1. Pascal and Sylvie de Sarthe launched de Sarthe Gallery in Paris in 1977.
2. In 2011, the de Sarthes moved de Sarthe Gallery to Hong Kong.
3. de Sarthe Gallery represents international artists with a particular focus on French Impressionism and modern and postwar Chinese painting.
4. de Sarthe Gallery opened a second outpost at Beijing's Caochangdi gallery district on April 4, 2015.
5. The Beijing outpost is led by Vincent de Sarthe, Pascal de Sarthe's son.
6. The Beijing outpost's inaugural show was "Borderless," which featured the work of Beijing-born Zhou Wendou.
Art+Auction is a reliable source. Its parent company, Louise Blouin Media, has been involved in controversies. From a source quoted above, "After laying off staff, owner Louise Blouin outsourced editorial content to India but to make it seem as if there were still a 'cosmopolitan' staff, articles were given bylines with generic international names." This is not the case for the Art+Auction articles I linked above, which were written by Darryl Wee, Claire Bouchara, and Nicholas Forrest, who are all real people:
1. From http://artloftasia.com/blog/author/darryl-wee/:
  Darryl Wee is head of visual arts for Asia at BLOUIN ARTINFO. He has previously written about contemporary art for Artforum, Art Asia Pacific, LEAP, Bijutsu Techo, the Japan Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and translated catalogues and essays on Gutai, Makoto Aida, Tadasu Takamine, Koki Tanaka and many other Japanese artists.
2. According to https://muckrack.com/claire-bouchara/articles, https://www.instagram.com/clairebouchara/, and https://twitter.com/clairebouchara, Claire Bouchara is a digital content manager at Bonhams.
3. According to https://www.instagram.com/theartmarketeye/, Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic, Head of Visual Arts at BLOUIN ARTINFO, and founder of http://www.thealist.art.
The other controversies at Louise Blouin Media#Controversies about a defamation lawsuit (resolution not included in the article) and the failure to pay former executives and freelancers do not cast into doubt the reliability of Art+Auction's articles.
The quarterly art magazine Art Republik provides detailed analysis of the gallery. From http://www.heart-media.com/magazines:
ART REPUBLIK is Singapore’s premier quarterly magazine for the art lover, celebrating the language of art. It aspires to be a platform for artists, curators and critics to express their insights on the world of art. Engaging the art lover in intellectually stimulating dialogues on art, history and popular culture, ART REPUBLIK aims to create meaningful exchanges between established and emerging artists, collectors and the art community. Our sections on the newest art exhibitions and fairs will also showcase the fresh and diverse views of art practitioners in various forms such as architecture, literature, fashion, film, and so forth.
Here is a quote: "De Sarthe Gallery has, in the past 6 years, solidified their place in the Hong Kong art scene with headlining exhibitions, beginning with ‘Zao Wou-Ki Paintings: 1950s-1960s’, following up with the sophomore show of American artist David LaChapelle, and continuing with other well-received solo as well as group shows, such as ‘Gutai’ and ‘Pioneers of Chinese Modern Paintings in Paris’. The article's author wrote a positive review about the gallery following an interview with de Sarthe. I do not consider this positive review to be an infomercial.
The New York Times article primarily is about Zao Wou-Ki but it also provides analysis of the gallery that could be used to improve the Wikipedia article. The article notes that Pascal de Sarthe asked clients to give him loans to procure 10 Zao paintings for de Sarthe Gallery's debut in 2011. It notes that the debut show showed Zao's "evolution through the 1950s and ’60s". It provides analysis of the company by saying that de Sarthe Gallery "joins a parade of new foreign-run galleries in Hong Kong’s Central district that specialize in blue-chip modern and contemporary artists" but is different because it is "the first to open with a significant show by an Asian artist".
Cunard (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cunard's sources. There's just enough beyond routine exhibition announcements - we now need to get the info into the article instead of just on the talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:13, 2 August 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania[edit]

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

A historical national constitution. Probably technically notable if one could find the relevant monographs on 1930s Albanian constitutional law, but the article doesn't actually say anything other than that it was established and then replaced, which is already covered (with more information) in the articles about the respective kingdoms. Sandstein 13:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains a link to the actual constitution, which can not be found elsewhere.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That link could be added elsewhere, e.g. in History of Albania. Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a directory of external links. Sandstein 13:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Zog's kingdom did not last, notability is not temporary. The 1928-1939 constitution clealrly passes GNG and is covered in current sources showing a lasting impact, e.g. [69], or this scholar search. Note for beforing - Zog, 1928, and constitution are better keywords than the article title.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sourcing (both given and elsewhere, even under its technical name, and they are less good) e.g. 1 e.g. 2. Constitutions are generally felt to be reasonable content forks as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The constitution probably meets notability requirements and as noted the fact that it did not last does not of necessity diminish its importance. However the article could certainly do with expanding by someone who knows more about this particularly to include material that explains the importance/notability of the constitution. Dunarc (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That the article is a stub is not a reason to delete. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 30 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alva Beaman[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is based on WP:BIO1E. Does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that so much of the article is cited to Quinn's work to me is a red flag. Quinn has been throughly shown to be a shoddy historian, so anything that relies on his work alone is in deep question. Nothing about Beaman's actions or coverage of him in secondary sources shows him to be notable. His daughter may be, but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 28 July 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 Pontiac#2005–2010. Can be merged from history at editor discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier (micro-series)[edit]

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

Per discussion at Talk:The_Courier_(micro-series)#Requested_move_14_July_2018 it is proposed to merge content to Pontiac#2005–2010. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Pontiac#2005–2010 as per nom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW guideline nor GNG. I don't think it fits in the current Pontiac article as I'm sure other marketing efforts would be far more valuable ahead of this. Its got a mention on micro-series which is good enough. -- Netoholic @ 09:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a WP:TVSHOW. It's a fancy ad whose only reason for getting a bit more press is it had a plot that advanced day-to-day, was of no help to Pontiac in the end, and fails to convince us of it through a bunch of mid-2000s buzzwords. delete Nate • (chatter) 05:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pontiac#2005–2010, as per nom's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:59, 2 August 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scales[edit]

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

I believe this page is not notable enough. My father whom the page is about has also requested for its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellescales (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic notability freebie to every holder of a diplomatic position just because his existence is technically verifiable in government press releases — deputy high commissioners have to have enough reliable source coverage about them in media to clear WP:GNG, and are not exempted from that just because primary source verification from the governments themselves is technically available. But the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all. And while we're not obliged to invariably follow an article subject's personal wishes, neither his notability claim nor his sourcing are actually strong enough to overrule WP:BIODEL here. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost entirely unsourced. The GOV.UK reference fails verification as the page no longer has any content about Scales. The other reference only supports one statement. The rest of the article is presumably original research. The information about his family seems unnecessary and contrary to their right to privacy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced. BEFORE shows a more notable German Jazz guitarist with the same name (and dewiki entry) - but little on the diplomat - doesn't pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough quality sources. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note: This nomination was missing the AfD Template, and was not properly transcluded. I have added the template and unsigned template, and will transclude it now. Please consider this comment as the time of listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like was started by the the person the article is about!
Delete a non-notable diplomatic functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 1 August 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. The consensus is that it is too soon for an article about the topic at this time, as information about its lasting significance and overall notability is still unclear. Mz7 (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stratified multi criteria decision making[edit]

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

Non-notable new method in decision making. The article identifies the topic's origin as 2016; there are no independent sources from 2016 or later showing the significance or importance of the method. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi Fred. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the comment. Just to resolve a misunderstanding. The 2016 paper is a different paper and is not the first proposal of the method, namely stratified multi criteria decision making method. The method has just been proposed and published a few weeks ago in a well reputed scholarly journal and it is normal that the significance importance of the method has not yet discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weighting judgement criteria, I'm unsure whether notability/Lasting can be satisfied, but in any case it's a unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK. C.Fred, do you have any particular issue with it being a redirect (just wanted to check, as it probably means I missed something)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I'm not convinced that the term is a likely enough search to be useful as a redirect. I would prefer outright deletion, but if the community prefers a delete-and-redirect or merge,-keep-history,-and-redirect outcome, I have no objections. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fred, Thanks for this. Your comment shows that you are knowledgeable about the general versions of Multiple-criteria decision analysis which is really good. You are right about the fact that Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weightings of judgement criteria, but they do not consider transition probabilities in the process of computing the weightings of judgment criteria. The Stratified multi criteria decision making proposes obtaining and considering the transition probabilities in the decision making process — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just been chatting to Rajabi689 on the talk page (invited him here), but the following source was offered: Knowledge-Based Systems Journal article on the topic, which is worth considering. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hi Fred and Nosebagbear. Thank you for the points that you have highlighted.

I understand that the method, Stratified multi criteria decision making, has not been well applied yet, but this is because it is like a newborn baby. It has been published only three weeks ago and needs time to grow. It usually takes at least 6 months until the first applications are published in reputed journals.

Re: The 2016 paper is a different paper and is not the first proposal of the method. The method has just been proposed a few weeks ago. Based on a theory, Concept of Stratification (CST) proposed in 2016, this new method of Multiple-criteria decision analysis has been accepted and published by a leading journal in July 2018.Before this date, there is no sign of stratified multi criteria decision making method. However, after six months, gradually the first applications of this method will be published.

Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weightings of judgement criteria, correct, but it does not include the uncertainty in weightings of judgment criteria. This method brings a new insight to Multiple-criteria decision analysis by suggesting the consideration of transition probabilities and a combination of situations that may happen in the near future to assign weightings of importance to criteria. Because of the novelty of the approach and the new insight that it brings to the process of assigning weightings for criteria, it has been accepted and published by a top journal. Otherwise, this journal https://www.journals.elsevier.com/knowledge-based-systems or journals at similar levels do not publish any ordinary method without significant contribution.

It will become a popular method. This is because the method has been published in a top journal after several revisions, Knowledge Based Systems https://www.journals.elsevier.com/knowledge-based-systems

This journal is not just a journal. It has high indexes: Impact factor: 4.5 and SNIP 2.6 and has been indexed by SCOPUS, ISI ABDC list, among others. In addition it is a top ranked journal in Elsevier and also in SJR ranking system with the CiteScore of 5.11

I hope that you can keep the method for a while and monitor the number of people reading opening the page.

Here is a link to this newly published method: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705118303502

P.S I have included some revisions on the page and it is becoming better and better. Please keep it for a while and you will see that more and more people will refer the page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rajabi, as I said on the talk page, we can't just sit around waiting for additional sources, otherwise wikipedia could never have any articles removed, see this policy - WP:TOOSOON. The number of people reading is also irrelevant for judging its quality as a source, but the other details may be. You also can't say that the method will become popular (and thus get more written about) just because it has appeared there - it's not something that can be proved.

As to the differences between this and weighted multiple criteria, if expanded upon that might function as an argument to change to Merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering withdrawing my nomination until I saw Rajabi689's comment that this method was proposed mere weeks ago. I don't see how any scholarly analysis of the method can have been done by independent researchers in that short window of time. Accordingly, I'm sticking with the nomination, echoing the WP:TOOSOON concern, and adding concerns that the Wikipedia article could have been created as a platform to make the method more well-known. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear, Yes, You are right. Your concerns are reasonable and valid.

I hope that you can consider allowing the page to remain in Wikipedia, taking into account the provided example below and the reputation of the publishing journal. Rajabi689 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The difference of this 2018 method with previous Multiple-criteria decision analysis

This new method, unlike the existing Multiple-criteria decision analysis, considers transition probabilities in the process of computing the weightings of criteria.

Here is a very simple example:

Imagine that a person wants to rent a room and has the following criteria: location, budget, and the floor area of the house. If this person assigns single weighting of importance to each criterion and scores to the options with respect to each criterion, the best option can be selected using a range of existing Multiple-criteria decision analysis methods.

However, there are cases where the person considers some possible events, likely to happen in the near future, such as the likelihood of his girlfriend, for example, moving in, buying a pet, selling his vehicle, getting a loan, receiving a promotion. In each of these situation, the person may have different weightings of importance to assign to the criteria. SMCDM method considers the weightings of importance of the criteria associated with the probability of those events occurring and compute the value of each options, so that the option with the highest value is selected. Through this, the multiple criteria methods become more reliable and robust. Using the provided figure, previous methods compute the weightings in only state k (shown by Wk) or the current situation, but this method considers a combination of situations associated with the relevant transition probabilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Overload! - Hi Rajabi, just a request, please limit your edits on any single comment - C.Fred and I have each received 33 pings on our watchlists for just two points. Remember you can always write, preview, tweak, preview again and post. You'll frequently see several posts from us as we make mistakes or realise we've forgotten something, but try and keep it reasonably low. Nosebagbear (talk)

Hi, Sure. Trying to improve, didn't know that you might receive notifications. Noted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a case of WP:OR (with WP:COI), in addition to WP:TOOSOON, what is telling is "not the first proposal of my method, namely stratified multi criteria decision making method." from the article creator 1st response above. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC) :article creator has changed their words of their 1st response, and my quote, they dont know not to change other editors words.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!!

Hi, I explain why it should not be deleted, especially in response to the deletion suggestion above.

First: you said that it is not an original research. Why is that so? What are your reasons? This is not true and the proof is its publication in a leading journal. It is an original research published in highly ranked journal with the impact factor of 4.5 by the most reputed publisher, ELSEVIER. They do not publish non-original research. There is no multi criteria decision making method that can take into account the transition probabilities in computing weightings of the criteria except this one, namely the stratified multi criteria decision making method, which has been published a few weeks ago (not in 2016!!!).

Second: Unfortunately you did not read the conversation properly. This is probably because you are busy and have to read many comments every day and I understand. I explain again the summary: Fred said that the first application of the method was in 2016, and since then there is no further application. I said, the 2016 paper is not the first proposal of the method. That 2016 paper does not have anything to do with multiple criteria decision making methods .

The 2016 paper proposes a concept (concept of stratification) which has been used to propose the multi criteria decision making model (2018). The method, namely the stratified multi criteria decision making method, has been proposed and published for the first time in July 2018. Your decision is not correct and moreover your reasons are not supportive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very first sentence of the article is an admission that this is too soon. The !vote above, with its insistence that the method was "proposed and published for the first time in July 2018", makes a very good case for deletion (albeit inadvertently). XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Yes, now what you say is sensible. It is early for this method. I agree as it is quite newly published. I will suggest it again a year later. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 July 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.