Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 July	6 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physioalphabet[edit]

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

There appears to have been little uptake of this innovation, or at least nothing that has resulted in substantial third-party coverage; all I can find is mentions on forums (Reddit, StackExchange), wiki aggregators, and the primary website. Nothing in the scientific literature. Fails WP:GNG. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Single Primary source only lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Otr500 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are various links to this, as an example of a Featural writing system. The main site for the script [www.physioalphabet.com] is dead, but images from it illustrating the characters remain in google. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This might suggest a possible application of WP:PAGEDECIDE - useful as a separate page even though formally notability is not established yet. I could support that. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a PAGEDECIDE application and the creation of a permanent stub is an option, if we don't have sources to establish notability now, when would we? This was done in 1994; it's not something that's currently ongoing. As it stands, we don't have it now, and I'm not finding any reliable secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HCentive[edit]

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

Promotional article of dubious notability -- started by declared paid editor--see talk p. The references areeither PR or mentions or general information DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually wasn't over the top promotional until they got to that awards and recognitions section. That sank the ship. Up to then I woulda let it fly for disclosing the COI. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is borderline because not all of the sources talk in depth about the company, but some do have more than a mere mention, some have several paragraphs. The accumulation suggests that there is some awareness of this company which nudges enough into notability for us to give it the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I opened half of the refs and they aren't sufficient for this to be notable. Admittedly I didn't open all of the refs but those I saw are company blurb that a paid editor adds... Szzuk (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can tell these sources meet WP:NCORP. Good to have on Wiki. Mememento (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCORP. Cleanup is needed as the article is written in a promotional tone. Masum Reza^📞 03:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed...meets WP:NCORP but cleanup is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Starks[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the many maintenance banners have been removed but none of the issues fixed. No reliable and independent sources, no demonstrable evidence of notability. Almost qualifies for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG by a country mile. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands this is WP:SELFPROMOTION. This person may become notable one day. If that happens a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again this one could be stub worthy, he has a movie, but this isn't a stub. This is a biography where I have to read about his time in the construction industry. Could fly with a 2-3 sentence just the facts stub. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is worthy of a stub only, he has a couple of movies and some citations but more are needed. JPC1990|Talk 09:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some notability but many more sources are needed. Greenunion97|Talk 10:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Greenunion97 is a sockpuppet of JPC 1990 created to vote in this debate. ST47 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How is this run of the mill actor meeting WP:NACTOR? Bearian (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The sock activity above can skew the argument. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV. The article is written in a promotional tone. Masum Reza^📞 03:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and to me reads as a borderline A7, almost. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per SIGCOV found. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Rusch[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single independent source and searches only reveal the usual crop of social media, YouTube etc but does include mentions by Cycling web-sites, Garmin etc but these all seem to be promotional/ sponsorship connections. The article has not been helped by relentless COI editing but even in its stripped down state, there is nothing here that gets close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I found the GNG, she plays the lead role in some movie that was a bit popular. No justification for all this though. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)comment by blocked user removed by Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 12:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands now does present as not notable, but there do appear to be reliable sources which talk about her as a known athlete: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There is enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show that this woman is notable. What has happened is that the sources used so far have simply been from her own website, which gives the wrong impression. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a niche sport, and some of the news coverage brought by SilkTork is in niche/special interest publications, but it is SIGCOV and I can see mainstream coverage including [Endurance athlete's unique source of income, Ruibal, Sal. USA TODAY; McLean, Va. [McLean, Va]21 Sep 2010: C.3. "Rebecca Rusch is one of the world's best endurance athletes, a three-time World 24-hour solo mountain bike race champion and the recent winner of the infamously difficult Leadville Trail 100 race, a feat she accomplished in record-breaking time. ... Thanks to a compensation formula introduced by her HuckNRoll.com adventure sports team, Rusch can add her social-media skills as a source of income... Under the HuckNRoll.com plan, its top athletes get a salary that is augmented by payments for their skill at getting fans to read their media offerings and also make purchases from the HuckNRoll.com retail website. "My career is absolutely a business and I have a degree in marketing," says Rusch, who is also sponsored by Specialized Bicycles. "There is more to my job than just training and racing. I am constantly looking for opportunities for myself and my sponsors to increase exposure and value."") and additional INDEPTH I can see in new archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well done to SilkTork for finding significant coverage. This article definitely needs gutted and rewritten, but at least there's something. I'll tag it for some repairs and copy SilkTork's sources to the talk page as can be used to improve the article, but it looks to be a subject worth covering. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Zuva Habane[edit]

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

Subjects is likely to be notable in the future but certainly not now. WP:TOOSOON Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impressive referencing. WP:TOOSOON by definition. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked indefinitely for socking. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. The article as currently written does not reflect the highest English Wikipedia standards in regard to article content and writing style but that is not a reason to delete. But there are plenty of sources available to write a start level article about her. It is TOO SOON to delete when the article can be fixed with a re-write. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not bad that it should be deleted and i can see there are some improvements on it as we speak, there are good enough sources/references, its a good start and will be improved. Hurungudo (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia's Friends International Meeting[edit]

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

Lots of details from primary sources about this conference, but no secondary sources that suggest it is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources available in English or Estonian that I can find. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If what they are saying is true it could justify a stub. Not this thesis clearly. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No needed coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hervey Bay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Hervey Bay[edit]

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

Just another run of the WP:MILL shopping centre. 35,0000 square metres is insignificant and there are no independent sources that would otherwise give it notability. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hervey Bay - subject is worthy of a mention in that article but not on its own. Bookscale (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hervey Bay, which will serve to improve that article (WP:ATD-M). Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hervey Bay per Northamerica1000. Definitely not worth its own article, but there's no harm in an alternative to deletion in this case, and the redirect isn't all that implausible in this instance, either. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv Cheese and Wine Festival[edit]

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

Poorly worded and formatted advertisement using apparently merely machine-translated information on www.cheeseandwine.com.ua about a topic of questionable notability. Hildeoc (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS, not to mention that it sounds like an ad. William2001^(talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO. Can be rewritten as a stub. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO only article. No notability. Consider CSD G:11. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious advertisement and is a copy-vio in some parts. I have tagged with G11 and G12. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason (programming language)[edit]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google feels otherwise. Unless you're seeing a promo or COI here I'm missing, this is a nice little stub that deserves a corner of our encyclopedia. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same - independent sources concur. Useful, appropriate subject for Wikipedia; it warrants keeping.Cypherquest (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of battleships. Redirect is the majority opinion, but I'm not sure it truly represents a consensus. It sounds like there's some restructuring going on of the various navigation tools related to warships, and this is part of that. If nothinge else, making it a redirect leaves the history intact, and if that future reorganization renders this redirect moot, it can be overridden by any editor as a normal part of routine editing process. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of battleships by country[edit]

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

List of battleships will follow the same format as List of battlecruisers, which renders this list redundant since the battlecruisers list is sectioned by country. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not sure that this article is redundant. It covers a different period to the other two articles mentioned in the nomination. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Broad Characterizations of time periods constitutes primary research. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of battleships. There are also various list articles for ships of the line Category:Lists of ships of the line which list the information about those types of ships in this list. So this list has no reason to exist. Dream Focus 23:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is really a list of lists. At present for navigational purposes the article is not much help. But it does have potential to be rewritten in such a way. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ajf773 makes a good point. This is a useful list page for navigating to all the other ship articles. Dream Focus 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally if kept this should be renamed to Lists of battleships by country, the other option would be your redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Dream Focus in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect By "will follow the same format", do you mean that you will be working on List of battleships, @Kees08:? If the links to the country ship lists will be in that article, then this is redundant. At the moment it may be a valid navigation page, but with the same links from List of battleships, it shouldn't be controversial to merge. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought it up at Operation Majestic Titan because it is on their task list. It was indicated that the formats of List of battleships and List of battlecruisers would be the same. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that every link in this article is a link to a list article. That information is not at any other location mentioned. Dream Focus 11:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Each section starts with it, for example Main article: List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy Kees08 (Talk) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also note that a list like List of battlecruisers by country would be entirely redundant to the nav template Template:Battlecruisers of the world. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the list is really just a nav template, and is mostly redundant to Template:Battleships (apart from mashing together multiple different types of ships that aren't all "battleship" as we use the term today. It's at best, redundant, and at worst, misleading. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of battleships. Combination of needed WP:TNT to this article (which indeed covers non-battleships as well) + this being a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as List of battleships is already sortable by operator. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: this article links to List of ships of the line of Denmark, and the other lists articles, 33 total blue links. That is not found in the other article. If ships of the line aren't considered battleships, despite being ships made exclusively for battle and having guns, then the article can be renamed List of lists of military warships by nation. Dream Focus 13:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must say that I am confused by the various "list of battleships" Wikipedia articles, and whether they overlap or not. This article is really "Lists of battleship types by country" (i.e. not only is it differenet countries, but also different types of battleships; which other "lists of battleships" are not always). To the extent that we don't have a master-dabpage or master-navbox linking to all the main articles of "battleship types" by "country", then this could be a candidate (however, the name would need to be fixed, and the format is also very poor, if not terrible)?.

HOWEVER, just to clarify, is Kees08, telling saying that an updated List of battleships article is going to include everything on List of battleships by country article, and thus it is not needed (or that between List of battleships and List of battlecruisers is will capture everything, in which case a seperate dab/navbox type-page is overkill)? Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify that I am very (very) sympathetic to editors like Kees08 with a record of bringing topic areas and lists to GA/FL status, and thus would like to understand properly their issue with this article, so that I am help them. Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking at the current Phase of OMT, and saw a list. I was clicking through them and this specific list stood out as redundant. Parsecboy knows the definition of battleship better than myself, perhaps the suggestion to rename it to List of lists of military warships by nation is okay. Though it would need a ton of work, and I am not a warship editor, so not sure what the viability of such a list of lists would be. In case you were wondering how I happened across it and why I nominated it (I rarely nominate for AfD). On your clarification point though, yes, that seems like a reasonable summary. There are other battleship editors I would ping for their opinion but I do not want to canvas, so I have not done that. I do not know if they would want to have it deleted or not, if that makes a difference. Kees08 (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Kees08, that is helpful. I would ping the other battleship editors if you think their view is relevant (you are allowed to ping editors who you think should be notified on an AfD); we are looking for the right outcome here, so getting the most informed input is the best approach. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sturmvogel 66: Do you have any thoughts on this AfD? Kees08 (Talk) 17:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Speedily deleted by Fastily under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rosati's Authentic Chicago Pizza[edit]

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

Reason ~ Is an article already ~ Rosati's Authentic Chicago Pizza ~mitch~ (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red_(programming_language)[edit]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no promo or COI here, and google verifies this is known and used. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jungle Book Shōnen Mowgli#Music. Content from article is already present in the section. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 02:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Jungle Baat Chali Hai[edit]

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

Unnecessary seperate article. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Jungle Book Shōnen Mowgli. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My grandkids sing this song all the time. Hindi version is probably notable where they speak that. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Jungle Book Shōnen Mowgli. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jungle_Book_Shōnen_Mowgli#Music, where information about it is already present. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Real One (Trina song)[edit]

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

There's nothing here to indicate that this recording is notable enough fo a standalone article. Normally in such cases I simply redirect to the appropriate album, but am not sure what the target should be; the article states its a 2015 recording on her sixth LP, which according to the discography was released this year. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I researched it too. I think the page is in error. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Article created by a now indefinitely-banned sock, and although the song is real, the article seems to be mostly fiction: the Billboard chart positions are made up, as is the article from Billboard's "Chart Beat" column (all the columns from the period are archived on the Wayback Machine, but this supposed one doesn't appear to exist). All the articles were allegedly accessed in 2015 for verification, yet this page was created less than two weeks ago. The song never appeared on an album (it's not on her recently released album), and with such a common title and a non-notable song, a redirect doesn't appear to be particularly useful. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provost Square[edit]

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

An apartment building. No indication whatsoever of how this meets WP:NBUILD which require the building to have " historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A substantial development of this sort is comparable with a small town or large village. It naturally attracts coverage in the same way and this one seems to be no exception. Examples include Foundation Work Underway For Provost Square...; New York Times; Wall Street Journal; The 28-story tower overlooks the newly created Provost Square .... And, of course, there are sensible alternatives to deletion, such as merger with Powerhouse Arts District, Jersey City or the List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE does not mean we do not delete anything. WP:NBUILD requires significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. A paragraph in the New York Times or even a full article in some obscure publication does not meet that requirement.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article be expanded? If not merge to one of the places suggested. Dream Focus 04:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete Not every generic apartment building is notable, even if it's tall and got routine local coverage that a developer is constructing it. Your stupid WP:PRESERVE does not mean everything on this entire site is immune from deletion. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand/Redirect & add List of tallest buildings in Jersey City Djflem (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand per above. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid vote, see WP:PERX, only this is even worse because you didn't even specify which person's vote you are agreeing with. Furthermore, unless you can actually provide some quality sources, stop with the WP:BEFORE garbage which really is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 I was endorsing the reasoning of Andrew D.. Calling out a violation of WP:Before is not a personal attack. See WP:NEXIST. That you disagree with my reading of those provisions is not a moral judgment on you. I will say what I want. Tone down your commentary on me. You are being unduly contentious. Once again, WP:Civil is being ignored by you.

You are wrong on your claim that "Not a valid vote." Who are you to make that call?

I will not call your edit "garbage" or other epithets. I don't think colorful expressions help the quality of the debate. Your comments stand on their own, and their nature and tone speaks for itself. Indeed, your citation to no personal attacks is tinged with irony.

I suppose you actually did WP:Before here. If you did it, why did you AFD Hudson Greene? And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marbella Apartments I simply stated facts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider move to draft I do not have time to develop the article, but the article should be developed User:Lightburst 13:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:7&6=thirteen. And calls to wp:PERSONALATTACK can themselves be personal attacks, as pretty much appears to be the case here. And I disagree with User:filelakeshoe: it has been established well enough that sources exist; we do not have to immediately fix the article; wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. The coverage, thus far, is for obvious reasons principally about its construction with little about its operation. At present I am not seeing WP:GNG compliance. Just Chilling (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Andrew D and 7&6=13. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the journal is notable (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Review of Books[edit]

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

The journal is not on its own notable. Currently, the article only has one secondary reliable source. Any notable well-sourced content about the journal can be merged with the article Claremont Institute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find lots of secondary sources, this article however is not neutral tone. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep notable intellectual journal despite the fact that it's about as popular on the left as The Nation is on the right. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. That said, the Needs More CITATIONS tag should remain in place, article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that previous nomination resulted in SPEEDY KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be developed, but revisit its status in the future; this article is short enough that it can become a merged section of the Claremont Institute if it doesn't grow bigger. Mang (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. When dealing with a periodical with this kind of impact, it's always a better idea to improve the page. IN Depth criticism of Claremont abounds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. This article is notable, but just needs to be tagged and fixed properly. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN . I especially want to thank User:Snooganssnoogans for failing to run a WP:BEFORE bringing this page to AfD. If he had done, I wold have a far more boring morning. When I spotted Claremont Review of Books on the "Politics" deletion list, I recognized it as a significant conservative book review, and argued "keep." Then Mang's provoked me to wonder whether, despite the fact that I had heard of it, it really could support a page. And so I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours making a deep dive into the unfamiliar waters of a bunch of serious intellectuals who live on an improbably Straussian island on the left coast. I don't come to Wikipedia to take deep dives into arguments that are part of the air we east coast intellectuals breath, I know what Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, and Naomi Wolfe are thinking. What I love about Wikipedia, and the reason I keep editing, is that it prods me into doing stuff like investing the time to figure out what makes a Claremonster tick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as Hoax Note I have moved article for Lincoln Manor (San Francisco) over in its place.). Woody (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Manor[edit]

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

A housing building that apparently has some local notoriety, but does not appear to meet the notability threshold of the WP:GNG. I can find nothing but very local coverage of the location, and even that is very spotty. For example, the only source currently in the article is a local, Nashville News story, and isn't even about the building itself, but an incident that occurred in front of it. I initially mistakenly PRODed this, not realizing it had already had a declined PROD years ago, and it was suggested that I should instead bring it to AFD instead. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article essentially has no references as the only reference is "WCTV local Nashville news" which does not do much to help narrow down the exact news report in question. Additionally, the reference appears to be about the robbery story, which is unique, but not nearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The information about the building itself has no sources and there is nothing about this article that suggests notability. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Speedy Applied WCTV is in Thomasville, Georgia serving Tallahassee, so the 'reference' is a complete hoax. There are zero G-hits about a Jeremy Wiggins in Nashville, much less the child being terrorized about his drinks stand. Main two editors never edited again after 2007. The Nashville Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency has never had a property named for Lincoln, and after this and the DAB on Google with a Boolean search, I get an apartment complex in Racine, Wisconsin, and this page with all public housing in the state shows only two buildings named for Lincoln, not in Nashville. Every single thing about this article is complete fiction, thus it needs to go as a completely blatant hoax (the longevity certainly makes it a WP:HOAXLIST candidate). After this, the article for Lincoln Manor (San Francisco) should be moved over it. Nate • (chatter) 19:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deistic evolution[edit]

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

Article copied from a website with a self-proclaimed POV that is admittedly incompatible with WP:NPOV (see RW:SPOV.) There is an active copyright tag on the page, which could be addressed by applying Creative Commons attribution, but since RationalWiki acknowledges the fact that their content is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, I'm thinking deletion is the best way to resolve this matter. Note that this page has been problematic since the early 2000s, with editors repeatedly recreating POV forks here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here’s RationalWiki’s copyright page — CC-BY-SA3.0. That not compatible? Otherwise clearly notable topic. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The license is legally compatible, but to comply would require linking to a self-proclaimed non-neutral source, and stating that we copied the content from that source. At that point, we might as well just throw WP:NPOV out the window. I would lean toward a complete deletion and a compete rewrite. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn’t mean a page from that site can’t still be NPOV. This one’s fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with respect to the rationales named by the nom. RationalWiki's licensing is entirely compatible with porting content - CC-BY-SA3.0 is what WP uses itself. So I don't know where these copyright concerns come from? - As for the topic, trivially shown to be notable. The article itself isn't in half bad shape either - could use a little more NPOVing of the language, but if anything it may be tending a little too much into apologetics (somewhat amazing for material coming from RationalWiki). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae. The licensing appears to be compatible. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licensing is compatible, and the topic is notable, so it should be kept. Maybe POV can be improved, but that does not warrant the deletion. William2001^(talk) 20:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - As above. Deletion is not the way to fix the issue. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Ratchford[edit]

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

Beyond the obvious, hollow going on here and the factual inaccuracies (she wasn’t on Parks and Rec). The "Instagram model" does not have a career worthy of a Wikipedia article, least of which that can be verified by reliable sources. And no, she was not covered by the Wall Street Journal. Trillfendi (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually verifiable that the subject was not on Parks and Recreation. The problem with this article is that it has been sourced to, or even (at several points in its history) been straight copies of, the subject's autobiography. Which is verifiably inaccurate, and not corrected to this day. This is an example of why we avoid autobiographies. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I’m getting at. The article acts like she had a prominent speaking role on a hit tv show yet the scene never aired. All for the sake of promotion! Frankly any article about an "Instagram model" requires extreme vetting. Trillfendi (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of inacurate things in this article. Wikipedia seeks accuracy and verrifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Myanmar 2020[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The event is almost a year away. At present the only referencing in the article all comes from facebook. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON, and while I can't view the Facebook pages due to editing through a corporate firewall at the moment, WP:FACEBOOK applies to all of the references. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, TOOSOON, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thabo Mats'oele[edit]

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

Plays in a non-professional league, therefore doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also an unreferenced, new BLP, so can be deleted under WP:BLPPROD. Seagull123 Φ 14:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably should have been bundled with his teammate. Fails NFOOTY, GNG, and is an uncited BLP to boot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basia Letuka[edit]

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

Plays in a non-professional league, therefore doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also an unreferenced, new BLP, so can be deleted under WP:BLPPROD. Seagull123 Φ 14:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11. Govvy (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLPPROD eligible, so actually an AfD isn't necessary. However, having done a quick BEFORE on the name - there simply isn't much on our subject - he doesn't pass GNG nor NFOOTY. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no indication of SNG or GNG, uncited BLP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW No sign of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to clearly favour deletion and the merge argument appears to have been adequately addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Indian creationism[edit]

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

This is an article that I mistakenly thought was an appropriate umbrella term referring to creationist beliefs among Native Americans, but it turns out that the invective is really only prominently mentioned as a criticism of Vine Deloria Jr. and almost no one else. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to be promoting this term as a subject independent of criticism of this particular person's ideas. The few other sources which mention this idea do so in an off-handed enough way to make it clear that we probably should simply not have an article on the subject per WP:NFRINGE.

Note that the article has been heavily edited to try to adhere to properly encyclopedic topics, but this accounting is best described as a WP:CFORK of creation myth. jps (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. The article name is misleading, in as much as it suggests there is a unified "creationism" among native Americans. The very fist line of the article ditches the term in favour of "Native American creation stories", which might be a good title for a book in comparative anthropology (and possibly a hard-to-write article, based on that book and similar sources ;-). The existing article has a lot of sources, but I had a hard time figuring out what it was about - it seems to make a lot of unstated assumption. I think the points about Deloria are or can be covered better elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since the article focuses on one person, Vine Deloria Jr., a criticism section could (should?) be created, cutting the majority of criticism from the writing section and adding it and the content from this article to the section. There is also the article on Red Earth, White Lies which is very similar to this article as it stood and stands now. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only usable content is already included, and covered more concisely and accurately, at Vine Deloria Jr. and Red Earth, White Lies. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to merge as pointed out above. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have just read both Vine Deloria Jr. and Red Earth, White Lies and find that the coverage is already adequate. —Paleo Neonate – 22:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cant add anything more than what's already been stated MaskedSinger (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Neither of the two keeps ("Seems notable" and "seems to be sourcing") make any policy based argument. That just leaves two deletes, which isn't enough to declare a real consensus. If either of you (or anybody else) wants to work on improving the article by adding in those sources, list this at WP:REFUND, or ping me directly if you prefer, and I'll be happy to userfy it for you, with no prejudice against moving it back into mainspace once you're done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Shpak[edit]

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

Russian actress without known roles, awards, coverage of life and career.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2019 (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/2019 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems notable. Here is a translation of the corresponding Russia Wikipedia article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- seems to be sourcing from the Russian and Belorussian pages that can be incorporated. matt91486 (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see multiple significant roles in notable productions, unfortunately. I have to admit that, rather than searching in Russian or Belorussian sources, I am going on the Russian and Belorussian pages, which have only a couple of blue-linked productions in the list of her screen roles, and she did not have significant roles in those productions. For some of the films/series named, the list states that she had a major role - but as there are no articles about those films/series, we can't know if they are notable. Most of the stage roles listed were while she was at theatre school, so are unlikely to be notable productions. Of the sources in the articles, most are primary, and one is an interview, so not independent. I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although someone with knowledge of Russian may be able to find evidence of reviews, or that the productions were notable and her roles in them significant. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that additional sources were presented later in the discussion, which nobody else in the discussion has followed-up on to address. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VHS Collection[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Presented sources are unreliable. Nothing significant found in Google searches. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notibility of band is poor, and existing material is not enough for a standalone article per WP:BAND. 1989 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does have an Allmusic bio here which normally indicates the likelihood of more coverage, also the axs article already referenced,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic bio does not grant straight forward notability, this has been discussed over and over at various Afds. Just like Forbes contributors, Axs contributor article can not be taken as a reliable source. At the bottom of the Quartz article, it is clearly mentioned that This article was produced by Quartz Creative on behalf of David Yurman and not by the Quartz editorial staff and that the article is sponsored by David Yurman. Finally, we do not keep articles based on probability, possibility or likelihood. Hitro talk 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. I see no evidence of either source being problematic with regards to Wikipedia, and barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing more than trivial secondary coverage Here Here and here and there is more which leads us to WP:NEXIST. The subject easily passes WP:GNG. The article should be developed. I added a section and included references. This article could be WP:HEY'd with an ambitious editor Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 02:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HomeVestors of America[edit]

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

promotional article, content substantially created by SPAs (see talk) and sourced to literal press releases and passing mentions, little to no in-depth non-promotional coverage in article or a WP:BEFORE. Not the depth to pass WP:NCORP. David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's justabout enough coverage, and I removed the promotionalism . I rarely do this nowadays, but it seemed worthwhile here. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are from company database, and the article on WSJ is from its blog. Viztor (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not every day I scroll through AfD and see something that I am familiar with without having to look it up, so that has to count for something. Meets WP:N, work on cleaning it up rather than deleting it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have material, please do add it! - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article passes GNG Thanks DGG. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tseole Ranthimo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Lesotho Premier League is not fully professional and the footballer has never featured in an international match. The article creator is rapidly creating one-liner Liphakoe FC team member articles and definitely has a COI. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A7 - I fully agree with the nominator, although in the interests of time, I had nominated a couple of these articles for speedy deletion under A7 and I wonder if the same criteria could be used here. If not, delete as entirely non-notable, not meeting GNG, not meeting NFOOTY, etc. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also an unreferenced, new BLP, so can be deleted under WP:BLPPROD. Seagull123 Φ 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to support notability per WP:GNG. Barca (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11. Govvy (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLPPROD eligible, so actually an AfD isn't necessary. However, having done a quick BEFORE on the name - there simply isn't much on our subject - he doesn't pass GNG nor NFOOTY.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with all. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets stop Beating a dead horse, this clearly does not meet the GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Several sources were presented as likely sufficient to meet GNG notability requirements, but no further discussion or investigation investigation has taken place. I have ignored the DELETE and SALT !Vote as unsupported and not policy based. There is no consensus the topic is notable, nor is there consensus the topic is not notable. There is also not consensus that Phlanger is an appropriate merge target. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeachPie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not able to trace any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Draft:Peachpie (compiler) has been rejected 4 times. The article was created after bypassing the AfC process. An example of Citation overkill where 90% of presented sources are unreliable. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's this as a new technique for deleting stuff? Say that there are too many sources? Are you going after Phalanger next? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair to the nominator, this article really does suffer from a severe case of WP:REFBOMB, as the vast majority of the nearly four dozen citations are definitely not usable as reliable sources (twitter posts, YouTube videos, blog posts, the PeachPie website itself, articles about completely other topics that don't mention this compiler at all, etc). However, there actually do appear to be a couple of legit sources buried in the mess. Might I suggest that, rather than a straight deletion or keep decision, that this article be returned to Draft space until its actually ready to be published in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards? Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: - I don't suppose you could point out 1 or 2 of these legit sources (I was wondering whether from your comment you'd already found them, to save a massive hunt by us) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I'll give the benefit of the doubt and AGF. – The Grid (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE AND SALT - not notable, and will continue to cause problems if recreation is allowed. Clnreee (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Phalanger (compiler)#Legacy, where it is discussed. Too many citations is a bogus reason for deletion, as this is an editing issue and AFD is not for cleanup. On the issue of notability, I found third party coverage in InfoWorld, TheNextWeb, i-programmer, and PHP magazine. The last is just a PR announcement, but the Infoworld article is a reasonable source and the TheNextWeb and i-programmer sources are not gold standard, but I think qualify as independent sources. In terms of notability, amount of coverage is right at threshold for me, but perhaps under threshold for the AfC editors. What is clear is that there is verifiable information on this topic and our policy is to preserve verifiable information per WP:ATD. A reasonable compromise that preserves such information would be a selective merge based on the reliable sources--an expansion of the Legacy section in the Phalanger article could be a good target. Hence, merge. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we merge to Phalanger? PeachPie supersedes Phalanger and all our Phalanger article says about it is, " Phalanger was discontinued in favor of the more modern PeachPie compiler," So why would we merge to the obsolete topic and delete the current one? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked 5 questions in this AfD but haven't given a single policy based rationale to keep this article. Please do so. Hitro talk 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relevant and useful article on a notable topic, that of a contemporary and widely-used software product. It also has forty-three references already, but you seem to claim that this makes it non-notable, i.e. that there are no substantial secondary sources referring to it. I think it's your call for deletion which faces the uphill struggle here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With respect to the two keep arguments, one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImageFInder913 suggests that it's actually only one, two, the only source-based argument has not convinced anyone else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Botterill[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. He may have been moderately successful but despite rampant self-promotion and plenty of PR has not attracted deep, significant coverage from reliable sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This businessman has had press coverage in [The Telegraph] and[The Guardian]. He is the author of two books [Botty's Rules] and [Build Your Business In 90 Minutes A Day] the former of which was a Sunday Times Bestseller. Agreed that the article needs expansion and better sourcing but is worthy of existence. ImageFInder913 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC) — ImageFInder913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both of the above links are in the small business showcase areas of the newspapers. I'm not saying that totally invalidates it, but the bar for being positively featured in these areas is not particularly high. It's not significant, independent coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't edit in business biographies but the article seems extremely undersourced and promotional; if kept it will need rewriting completely. If notability is claimed as an author, then what is needed is multiple reviews of each of the books; see WP:AUTHOR. This is not provided, indeed the second book is not even mentioned in the current article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have edited the article to remove unreliable sources and promotional material. Article is now more reliable and mentions the books listed above. EditUK84 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC) — EditUK84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ImageFInder913, the above user is a 'likely' sockpuppet of ImageFInder913 who also !voted above. I'm not striking the comment as the SPI isn't yet closed either way, but just worth highlighting in case this AFD gets closed before the SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. afaict his books got no reviews. There is a claim to have gotten on a bestseller list that I cannot source. Most of the career section is unsourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear PROMO of a NN businessman and author. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a WP:NAUTHOR failure. The subject has published books, but the article lacks sources that indicate why these books are significant or how the author has a claim to encyclopedic significance. The article was also created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thato Salemane[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Lesotho Premier League is not fully professional and the footballer has never featured in an international match. The article creator is rapidly creating one-liner Liphakoe FC team member articles and definitely has a COI. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD A7 - I fully agree with the nominator, although in the interests of time, I had nominated a couple of these articles for speedy deletion under A7 and I wonder if the same criteria could be used here. If not, delete as entirely non-notable, not meeting GNG, not meeting NFOOTY, etc. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also an unreferenced, new BLP, so can be deleted under WP:BLPPROD. Seagull123 Φ 14:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLPPROD eligible, so actually an AfD isn't necessary. However, having done a quick BEFORE on the name - there simply isn't much on our subject - he doesn't pass GNG nor NFOOTY. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. No notability established. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letuka Mokhochane[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Lesotho Premier League is not fully professional and the footballer has never featured in an international match. The article creator is rapidly creating one-liner Liphakoe FC team member articles and definitely has a COI. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also an unreferenced, new BLP, so can be deleted under WP:BLPPROD. Seagull123 Φ 14:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLPPROD eligible, so actually an AfD isn't necessary. However, having done a quick BEFORE on the name - there simply isn't much on our subject - he doesn't pass GNG nor NFOOTY.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kennedy[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find only passing mentions of him and no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article seems to be an autobiography and has been deleted previously, although I am not clear as to the circumstances of that deletion nor the content of the previous version. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional autobiography that clearly fails WP:GNG - I haven't found any significant coverage of the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROMO. Now that all the puffery is gone it reads like little more than a resumé. StonyBrook (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaparva[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources to reference, nor is it noteworthy enough for a dedicated page and it acts as self promotion. Bottletoppen (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2019 (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/2019 July 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to being terribly written and without independent sourcing, this might be a copyvio. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closed as G11 : Unambiguous advertising by an administrator (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 02:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Kumar Akhramka[edit]

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

Highly promotional (auto?)bio of a non-notable CEO. The only coverage he has attracted is occasionally being quoted in industry articles. Lack of deep, significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely a WP:PROMO and most likely a WP:AUTOBIO of a non-notable CEO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Garese[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. The article was created by a pro-government botnet recently revealed in Russian Wikipedia (even got into the media [10]) Nicoljaus (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to satisfy notabiltyMaskedSinger (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From ruwiki AfD (although notability criteria are probably different): Gerese 1) owns a small baker chain, nothing worth noticing; 2) took part in the privatization of VS Energy, second or third largest Ukrainian energy company, but ZN.UA calls him a fake person just hiding real owners, and nothing more detailed was found, so I deleted the article in ruwiki. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG Comte0 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nim_(programming_language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I tried to find resources about Nim, I discovered [this book ] but it's written by Dominik Picheta, he is one of the main developers of the Nim programming language, he is also the author of the Nimble package manager as well as many other Nim tools. So this book is a (Primary Source) and can't be used to establish notability. I reviewed also [this reference] It doesn't say much about the language (not a significant coverage) - Also contains critics like "Nim's biggest disadvantage right now is the relatively small community of users involved in its development -- an understandable drawback given its status as an independent work. Development is led by the language's creator, Andreas Rumpf, but it's not a full-time effort. Compiler bugs still pop up regularly. Even moderately old code examples may no longer be useful due to changes, and it can be hard to find out what those changes are without closely following the project's development". Other references like [11][12][13] are written by the language author (Andreas Rumpf) - They are primary resources (can't be used for notability) and this reference is just a trivial mention.

Charmk (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole chapter on Nim programming in Modrzyk's Building Telegram Bots (pages 17-36). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good source, but for notability we expect multiple sources (Three are enough). Charmk (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Coverage in InfoWorld, Dr Dobbs, and a whole book (Nim in Action) by Manning? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These are primary sources writen by Nim Team or using their words in an interview, Can't be used for notability. Charmk (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As noted, YouTube views are not a qualifier of notability on Wikipedia. And most editors feel the sources are poor enough to merit deletion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redefined A Cappella[edit]

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

Uncertain evidence of notability -- clearly promotioan lintent. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the UW-Madison page. I couldn't find any coverage of the group that would satisfy the GNG, and the article is a bit too promotional. Though, as a Wisconsinite, I can attest that they are well known there--the sources just don't cut it. Might be worth taking a look at the other ones linked as well. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. It's highly promotional tone might also have qualified as per WP:TNT. Some of the claims (100 million views) are completely unverified.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Deleteas promotional wording can be removed, but the views on youtube alone are enough to meet the standard of notability. I agree the sources are not ideal, but not to the point of deletion. Thefactmanirud (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefactmanirud: An amount of YouTube views isn't direct evidence of notability. Per WP:IS and WP:OR, YouTube videos and their ilk can't usually be used to decide whether the subject of an article is notable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. Also suggests redirection/merge, which can be done wihout an AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour_(programming_language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harbour (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. Charmk (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This language provide free open source implementation for the Clipper programming language. Clipper is notable programming language but this doesn't means that Harbour is notable. if others don't like to lost the information about Harbour, then it could be merged with the Clipper article. Charmk (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Generic nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limnor[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no secondary resources that provide significant coverage Charmk (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E-Home Automation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Coverage is routine, does not pass WP:CORP. Raymie (t • c) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Five references, three of which do not appear to come from reliable sources, one not available online, the last not in English. Even if the final two are established sources, two sources do not merit notability. -Dannyosage (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tersus[edit]

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

Non-notable software (no secondary resources) Charmk (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources; no notability MaskedSinger (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable softare per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PureScript[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is recreated many times without solving the main issues (No secondary resources that provide significant coverage for notability), So when deleting this page I suggest protecting it from recreation. Charmk (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but regardless, PR-based coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Campbell[edit]

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

This is written entirely as a product of PR, and based entirely upon PR references, that I can not tell its suitability. (I removed one unsourced section about personal relationships) Possibly a G11? DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - created today but all the references was 2012? Not Wiki worthy MaskedSinger (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very poor rationale. I happen to have written articles where many of the sources were from the 20th century.
What counts is the depth of coverage of the sources of the subject's life and works, and their provenances (in particular authorship trustworthiness and independence of the subject).
The only source of the ones cited in the article that comes even close to such, most of them being largely speculative and fact-free, is the TOI one. Unfortunately, it is in the entertainment section, which User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media#Times of India tells us is paid news in India. That leaves zero such sources cited, and the question remaining whether any such can be found. I had a look, and could find nothing except for more paid news. This person's life and work is simply undocumented anywhere outside of autobiography and advertisement (sneaky paid news or otherwise), meaning that a good biography cannot be written in accord with our content policies.
I observe that several of the purported facts in the article, such as the exact date of birth, come from no source that I can see or find, not even the paid ones.
Uncle G (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think i should add more refrence links in this article to make it strong. Krohitk (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a WP:PROMO supported only by PR pieces. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON as she does not yet have any prominent roles in notable productions that would give a pass of WP:NACTOR and behind the scenes as a production assistant is too minor a profession for WP:Creative which would require writing the screenplay and/or directing, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: She doesn't appear to have any prominent roles in Hollywood films, but IMDb lists her as a main cast member in Yeh Mohabbat Hai, Jaani Dushman: Ek Anokhi Kahani, and Ho Sakta Hai. Do you think this is enough to pass NACTOR? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, IMDb is very unreliable, in the wikipedia articles on those productions she is well down or not even in the cast lists, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Generally I dislike having to check "who's who" when closing a discussion, but when all the commenters defending what looks on the surface like a company PR effort are low-involvement accounts making mostly non-policy-based arguments, it stretches the boundaries of WP:AGF to take them at face value. RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Low Energy[edit]

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

A great deal of PR, but nothing else. a/c even the PR, what they have is "potential" DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't agree with you more DGG.Dare I say it, as far as pages go, this one is pretty low energy... MaskedSinger (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was in two minds about this one - I did a bit of work on this yesterday removing some of the more obviously problematic stuff, and had been planning to go back and have a better look at the other sources today - I see DGG beat me to it. Agree that the sourcing overall doesn't arise to WP:CORPDEPTH, so delete as non-notable.GirthSummit _(blether) 11:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that there could be some COI/gaming the system issues with the author's account. They performed precisely 10 gnomish edits, then nothing for a few days, then produced this article. I'm not looking to cast aspersions, but that behaviour would be consistent with doing the bare minimum to get autoconfirmed, which would avoid having to go through the AfC process.GirthSummit _(blether) 12:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:Girth_Summit The first thing is, you removed the whole section, didn't even bother to go through the links. They were all reliable and had in-depth coverage. The only thing lacking, I think, was the references were not placed after the sentences, they were put at the end. Even I can put them in order with the respective sentences for which they had been linked to.

Secondly, I doubt you go through the issues mentioned. Notability is clear from the (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).

Thirdly, what is wrong if I had just 10 edits? Is it against the policy of Wikipedia to create a page with only 10 edits?AnneMendik (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnneMendik, on your first point, I assure you that I did go through the links. The content I removed was either unsourced, or sourced to affiliated refs, or to primary refs. Please feel free to reinstate any content and/or refs that you feel were removed incorrectly, and other editors will assess them as a part of this deletion discussion.

On your second point, notability isn't established by giving links to Google searches - you need to find multiple specific sources that satisfy the requirements at WP:CORPDEPTH.

On your third point, I am not accusing you of anything. However, 10 edits, and an account that is four days old, is precisely what you need to be able to create an article without having to go through the WP:AfC process. That would be one way of circumventing the review process, if one wanted to avoid having a draft rejected because it was too promotional, or the subject wasn't demonstrably notable. If you have any kind of connection with the subject of the article, you should review WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Girth_Summit, Regarding the content removal, part of the content which I have restored now was properly referenced and it was covered by third-party reliable media outlets. They were properly sourced and were neither sourced to the affiliated references, nor to primary references.

Regarding the notability, Wikipedia says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Moreover, notability guidelines say: smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products. Of course, you cannot compare a new organization with Samsung or AppleInc., they need to be treated standalone.

Further, WP:CORPDEPTH 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." Don't you see these in the references?

Regarding the account, I had had an account a few years back, I forgot the details and created a new one. As long as I know, there is nothing wrong in creating a page by using an account which is a few days old. The fact is, even if the article is created in the mainspace, it would go through the review process.

Finally, if you don't have time, let the other editors and reviewers evaluate the work, it isn't necessary that you strip the content and favor the page for deletion by any means. The way you removed the links and the content without any evaluation was not the right way. Obviously, a new page will not be perfect, it can be improved if properly tagged with the issue. AnneMendik (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm honest, I'm not seeing the sources in the same light that you are. There are some articles in the local press which look like rehashed press releases (including at least one that is actually labelled as a press release), but nothing which obviously passes CORPDEPTH. However, I'm happy to let this discussion play out and see what other editors think.

Would you be prepared to affirm that you have on connection of any kind to the subject of the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In technological field, I think this firm introduced an innovative idea pertaining energy sector, eventually they have won many national wards as well as fundings acclaiming their business idea. Moreover, the subject is fairly covered in some newspapers showcasing their potential as a technology company. So, I don’t think it would be appropriate to nominate the article for deletion. Instead, the article can be improved by adding proper citations and more references.Mehmood.Husain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listed awards are more PROMO than notability establishing. Does not have multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail thus does not meet NCORP and is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references do seem mostly from Press agencies about the company but these look like 3rd party reviewers and not self generated, also some are notable references from Universities, and Energy organisations such as ESA.org, the Energyinst.org and the UK Energy Saving Trust. I also see they have published and granted patents around the world for their technology as can be seen on google patents so have technological IP so I would suggest adding this to the page to affirm its importance - https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Extreme+Low+Energy SRANDELL (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would encourage any closer to review the contribution histories of the editors so far !voting keep in this discussion.GirthSummit _(blether) 23:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Trapper (film)[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a film that was never completed or released. As always, a film entering the production pipeline does not automatically get an instant notability freebie that exempts it from having to actually clear WP:NFILM, precisely because films sometimes never actually get finished or released -- and the existence of one news story about its collapse in one newspaper is not, in and of itself, an instant free pass over WP:GNG either: we would require several reliable sources to cover this in depth, not just one, before the existence of media coverage was substantive enough to override its lack of actual release. Our goal is to have articles about notable films that people can see, not about every film project that ever got started but not finished. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough in any way. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the very best, a brief mention could be added to Albert Johnson (criminal)#Films and music, but I'm not in favor. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage and fails WP:NFILM. Anne drew 01:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was never completed and has no notability. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incompleteness fails WP:FILM. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Fabbri[edit]

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

Mayor of a very small town. Couldn't find much of anything searching. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every mayor of every town on earth that has mayors is not automatically notable per WP:NPOL: mayors have to either serve in major cities, or be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of media coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other mayors. But neither of those is the case here: the town has a population of less than 1,000 people, she is not automatically special just because her entire country is barely the size of a small city anywhere else, and this is referenced 75 per cent to raw tables of election results which are not support for notability at all, and 25 per cent to a short blurb which is not enough media coverage to magically get her over WP:GNG all by itself as the only non-primary source in play. None of this is remotely close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows that this mayor of a town is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of Xinjiang. Well, the nominating statement is a bit vague (claims of something being an "attack page" need to be substantiated a bit more, "does not cover its actual subject" aside from being disputed does not necessarily merit) but some clearer arguments have crystallized out in the discussion. The delete argument is basically that it's a page created to attack a subject, using misused/cherrypicked sources and despite the existence of an other article - History of Xinjiang - on a similar topic (WP:POVFORK). On the keep side, I see arguments that there are sources that discuss the topic in detail and some differences in opinion about whether they are actually adequate, as well as the point that ordinarily when a page has problematic content it is cleaned up rather than deleted. There has been some discussion on the last point about whether WP:ATTACK or WP:DYNAMITE are reasons for deletion. There is also some discussion of topic bans, sinophobia and the like which doesn't really help assessing the status of the discussion. On the basis of headcount, I see 11 delete or redirect arguments - which I am counting together as both propose getting rid of the page and some endorse either outcome - and 5 keeps plus one struck sockpuppet vote.

On balance, it seems like what this boils down to is that the topic may be noteworthy - detailed discussion about sources was a bit sparse at first and later swamped by accusations - but the article in its present shape is quite poor - the attack claim appears to be based on reasoned arguments - I see Geo Swan's contestation but it is by itself rather vague (and too heavily dependent on comparisons to other pages). The deletion policy does allow for the deletion of attack pages and also of POV forks. The headcount barely favours removal of the article. On the other hand, the question of whether the topic may merit a page is unsettled.

Ultimately, this is a redirect case, as a) redirecting has been suggested and endorsed by some !voters, with the history page implicitly mentioned, b) to meet the scope of the deletion argument as the argument that the page in its current state violates key policies and guidelines is well supported and c) to leave the content available in case someone wants to fix the article's problems and in case the sources turn out to be usable (that is, to meet some of the concerns of the keep arguments). That would probably need more discussion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Uyghur intermarriage[edit]

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

Article does not cover its ostensible subject and is basically an attack page. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of deletion discussions related to Central Asia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel like this article abuses its sources and stretches them to make a political point, while perhaps this should be a page in the future as it stands I say blow it up and start over. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to starting a new article with the same title, or redirect - This is a potential subject if suitable references could be found, but as it stands this is just an attack piece and should be deleted per WP:DYNAMITE. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYNAMITE is neither policy nor guideline. As there are widespread reports that China is razing Uighur mosques (example), a further appeal to violence seems in poor taste. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This from a leading member of the so-called "Article Rescue Squadron" who didn't raise a finger when this happened... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of appealing to "violence" because they refer to WP:DYNAMITE is silly, and as is pointed out above, hypocritical. Sure, WP:DYNAMITE is just an essay, but WP:ATTACK is policy and there's a not-un-reasonable argument that this should have been speedied under G10. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G10 would not be applicable. For one thing, it requires that the material be unsourced whereas this article has lots of sources. These demonstrate that there's a topic here, per WP:GNG. If there are neutrality issues, per WP:NPOV, then the correct action is to amend and improve the article per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. High explosives are not appropriate for this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" - note the "or" following the semicolon. The presence of sourcing in an attack page does not make it not an attack, if it exists "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". No-one can read this and not think it was written with the intent of disparaging Uighurs. Moreover there is no version in the edit history that can be reverted to that is not also an attack page. G10 reasonably applies. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject here is "Han–Uyghur intermarriage". The page does not attack this as a concept; it relates some history of the matter. It's rather half-baked because it's an early version which seems to have been interrupted. For example, it tries to relate some statistics which seem to be based on the work of a respectable academic. The relevant policies here are WP:CENSOR and WP:IMPERFECT, not WP:ATTACK. Non-policies such as WP:DYNAMITE are quite unreasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters... Check out what the creator has done to this page... [14] This is one in a series of attack pages with a very clear and racist focus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture Andrew Davidson defended another virulently anti-Chinese article whose basic gist was that all the generally accepted Chinese influence on Japanese civilization actually came from Korea. It wouldn't surprise me if he had never, in a decade of AFD !voting, supported the deletion of a sinophobic attack page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not understanding the nomination because, at first reading, the page seems to contain lots of information about the ostensible topic. The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable. As it's an early start on a cleanup, then it would be silly and disruptive to start again so soon. In any case, merger back into the parent would be preferable to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of the references is actually WP:SIGCOV of the topic per se. Instead the content of this article appears to be cherry-picked quotes from larger works which simply mention Uighur-Han marriage in passing. It's basically a big collection of WP:OR, with the quotations always selected so as to reflect badly on Uighur people. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. For example, the Bride and prejudice source is clearly WP:SIGCOV. Other sources seem to cover the topic as part of wider coverage of Han-Uyghur relations and they are WP:SIGCOV too. And there are plenty more sources out there to expand and improve the topic such as Chinese authorities offer cash to promote interethnic marriages. The topic is clearly not original and claims that it's an attack page seem to be reaching too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per BRD. I'm not seeing where Andrew is coming from claiming this page's history makes it clear it was split off from the long Xinjiang history article -- at the time this article was created, that article contained a single short section on this topic, corresponding basically to the lead of the present article. The present article reads a bit like a POVFORK of the other article, created at its current location to get around the scrutiny of the original article's 63 page watchers. Obviously the topic is notable, but we really shouldn't be allowing the present article to exist in its present state if the only ones who think it should be so are the article's creator and editors who are opposed to all of the "alternatives to keeping" on principle. This looks a little like the old "deletionists telling editors who specialize in this topic area what they can and can't do with their own articles" problem seen, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination), and Talk:Mottainai Bāsan#Requested move 7 December 2018. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit which created the article was substantial (17K) and the summary was "first stroke from History of Xinjiang". We should wait on the creator to explain this in more detail. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said above: The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable -- this argument doesn't make sense, since the corresponding section of the Xinjiang history article could not be reasonably shortened based on the existence of this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I don't really care. This is a blatant and intolerable attack page. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seem like a notable topic, plenty of reliable sources to talk about it. If you see any problems then tag them or discuss them on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 12:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom and Mkativerata. POV fork/attack page. -- Begoon 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the article's creator is likely to be TBANned partly as a result of creation of this POVFORK.[15] He appears to have gone largely silent for the last several days; if he does log in and !vote, his forthcoming TBAN should be taken into account by anyone considering closing this AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable. The only article which links to it is History of Xinjiang itself so redirecting it there would be pointless. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did Donald Trump craft this mess? Even if four score and seven editors tried to fix it, this is still a soap box of a page. We are an encyclopedia, not a random advocacy webhost. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim.

This a curious article. It has enough sources to suggest it is a real topic.

The history of it needs to relocated and restated.

The reasons for it are presented as fact. Indeed, the admixing of ethnographic data suggests that there is some 'valid reason' for ethnic, racist, religious and sexist policies. The tone is seemingly dispassionate. Rather like citing the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a justification for the Nazi holocaust. I think the tone is clearly objectionable, and tends toward being a Polemic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - badly written articles, on notable topics, are supposed to be re-written, not deleted.
Occasionally, after a long process where good faith contributors have tried, and failed, to agree on a compromise wording, it is then appropriate to call for deletion. But our nominator, Adoring nanny, jumped immediately to calling for deletion without even attempting to voice their concern on the talk page.
When the nomination says this article is "basically an attack page" I am afraid we are seeing a failure on the part of nominator - either a failure of imagination, or a failure of neutrality. Look at this google search for Uyghur and "forced marraige". RS report on legal and human rights experts describing the phenomenon of Uyghur women being forced to marry Han men as a crisis, as a kind of genocide. Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your arguments policy based and refrain from personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Geo Swan just made an inaccurate and highly sinophobic remark on my talk page.[16] I suspect if this disruption continues Geo Swan may be going the way of this article's creator. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here disagrees that this article could not be notable, just the same as any other attack page attacking a notable subject. However, this is clearly an attack page, without any previous point in its edit history which we could revert to that is not an attack page. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 called my comments "sinophobic". This discussion is not going to be improved if I respond in kind, so I won't. I will point out that there is no topic that can't be written about from a neutral point of view, if good faith contributors make enough effort to actually listen to one another.
Reliable sources claim China's policy towards the Uyghurs (and the Tibetans) constitutes massive breaches of International Human Rights standards, could be a form of genocide.
Here are a couple of thought experiments. (1) If the apartheit system remained in practice in South Africa, what restrictions would we place on those trying to right about the daily human rights breaches of the apartheit system? (2) If the US Civil War had not been fought, and the USA still allowed slavery, what coverage would we allow to abolitionists?
I'd like to think we would honor NPOV and RS, and allow contributors to cover the views of those who voiced challenges to those systems, so long as they used the neutral voice, and substantiated everything they wrote about with good authoritative references.
My call on everyone to recognize that RS describe a Chinese policy to force or coerce Uyghur women to marry Han men is not "sinophobic". Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Article does not cover its ostensible subject and is an attack page. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well-cited info; it originally belonged to History of Xinjiang, but then apparently the article got too long, which is supposedly why a new page was created; apparently this info was not even originally authored by Alexkyoung (but looks like User:Milktaco); I am currently working on improving it.Jarvis Maximus (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jarvis Maximus is blocked as a sockpuppet of Alexkyoung ST47 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adoring nanny called this an attack page. FOARP, Horse Eye Jack, Mkativerata, Begoon and ~~Hijiri88~~ have all repeated this attack page claim. Sadly, none of these individuals has made any effort to explain why they classify this as an attack page. Adoring nanny, you made the nomination. You have the primary responsibility to explain this claim.
Please don't claim it is "obvious". I suggest that if the article doesn't lapse from neutrality, describes something written about by reliable sources, then it is no more an attack page than an article on apartheit.
If none of you can substantiate the "attack page" claim then the advice of DYNOMITE doesn't apply either. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly obvious why we describe this as an attack page. The very first line of it was a description of an incident from 1947 in which "Muslim women who married Han Chinese men were assaulted, seized, and kidnapped by hordes of (Uyghur) Muslims", then moves on to a discussion of how "the Uyghur population branded such women as milliy munapiq (ethnic scum), threatening and coercing them in accompanying their Han partners in moving to Taiwan". It then talks about how "A 28 year old mixed race woman named Amy whose father was Han and whose mother was Uyghur was interviewed by The Atlantic and she spoke of being estranged from Uyghurs and viewed Uyghur men's appearances negatively" etc. etc. etc. Over and over negative points about Uighurs are cherry-picked from larger works and presented as things worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It's ultimately just a WP:COATRACK for an attack on Uighurs. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: While I am certainly not willing to support your claim that this isn't an attack page, given the somewhat toxic sinophobia you expressed on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you didn't make groundless claims like "[Hijiri88] called this an attack page". My redirect argument is based on the page being a POVFORK, and I have not spoken of "attack pages" at any point in this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, this is the second time you characterized my comments as "sinophobia" or "sinophobic". As I noted above, I don't think this discussion will be improved if I were to respond in kind. I encourage you to respond to the substantive parts of the arguments your corresondents make, not to your personal opinions on their character or motives. In particular I compared our choices of how to cover the reliable sources that describe China have policies, like forced marriage of Uyghur woman as oppressive to how we should cover slavery in the USA, or Apartheit in South Africa. Coverage of the USA's history of slavery, or South Africa's history of Apartheit, is only US-phobic or South Africa-phobic, if we deviate from the neutral voice. If we had deviated from the neutral voice the policy approved choice is editing, not deletion.
I was careless in my check of who did or didn't call this an attack page. You didn't. So I struck your name. Now please reply with substantive non-accusatory arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I am sorry, I explicitly requested no claims of obviousness, because, on an international project, nothing is obvious.
You have been around here for a long time, correct? So have I. And during my time here I experienced something I would be surprised if you hadn't. Eventually we will all start to work on neutral coverage of a topic, only to find we personally disagree with the key conclusions of every reliable source. I suggest that, when we find ourselves in that situation, we have just two policy compliant choices. (1) pinch our nose and faithfully quote, summarize and paraphrase what the RS say, in spite of our personal disagreement, or; (2) sit that one out, refrain from working on articles where our personal conclusions differ from what the RS say. In over ten thousand of my edits I pinched my nose and did my best to be faithful to the conclusions of RS I personally disagreed with.
Why shouldn't I expect my fellow contributors, why shouldn't I expect you, to live up to the same standards?
In your comment above did you mean to leave the impression that you just don't want a wikipedia article to cover the RS that document China's policies on the Uyghurs? Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the findings of a reliable source. They are single datapoints cropped from multiple reliable sources so as to provide a false impression: that Uighurs are backward and evil. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne N. Smith Finley (2013). The Art of Symbolic Resistance: Uyghur Identities and Uyghur-Han Relations in Contemporary Xinjiang. BRILL. p. 17. ISBN 9789004256781. Retrieved 2019-07-11. The first, known as the Qumul Rebellion, occurred in 1931 when the predatory behaviour of a Chinese military commander towards a local Uyghur woman resulted in his assassination and a series of uprisings against the Chinese warlord administration in Urumchi.
CJ Werleman (2019-05-17). "Why is the world sitting idly by as China persecutes Uighur Muslims?". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 2019-07-11. There have been accounts of systematic torture, rape, forced sterilisation programmes, forced marriages of Uighur women to Han Chinese men, forced adoptions of Uighur children to Han Chinese families, public executions, and even evidence pointing to the harvesting of live organs.
"Dozens of mosques, major shrines 'razed' in China's Xinjiang". Al Jazeera. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2019-07-11. 'Credible and corroborated reports and testimony point to evidence authorities are deploying the whole gamut of repressive measures to carry out what can only be described as cultural genocide, including the establishment of a network of concentration camps; accounts of torture, forced marriage, and adoption and sterilisation programmes,' he told Al Jazeera.
David Brophy (2010). "The Qumul rebels' appeal to Outer Mongolia" (PDF). Turcica. Retrieved 2019-07-11. The immediate catalyst for it was outrage at the forced marriage of a local girl to a Chinese lieutenant, but discontent among Turkic-speaking Muslims had been growing since Jin's abolition of the local wang (king) administration in 1930, the immediate effects of which were the imposition of new taxes, and an influx of poor Chinese immigrants.
Kate Lyons (2018-12-07). "Uighur leaders warn China's actions could be 'precursors to genocide'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2019-07-11. Greve said government action needed to be taken in response to the repression of Uighurs, which included forcible separation of children from their parents, reports of forced marriage between Uighurs and Han Chinese, and the banning of Uighur language and culture.

@Geo Swan: You have made a patently false claim about me, e.g. "none of these individuals has made any effort to explain why they classify this as an attack page” and I call on you to retract it. You will see that I gave two specific reasons as well as a rationale for why it should be deleted even though the underlying topic may be notable. Nor did I explicitly label it an attack page in my original comment, although I do in fact believe it to be so. My clarification to another editor does charicterize it as an attack page, but again it offers clear reasons for such a label, e.g. overwhelming racism. You are free to argue your corner but show other editors a modicum of respect. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATTACK, WP:POVFORK and WP:COAT. This page is ostensibly about a social phenomenon, but in reality is just a coatrack to try and smear Uighur populations by cherry-picking articles to shed them in the worst possible light. There is also nothing to indicate that the ostensible topic (intermarriage between these groups) is, itself, notable enough for a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suppose there might be some basis for a page on Han-Uighur relations in general in the references, but History of Xinjiang has that covered pretty well already. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy bank cryptography[edit]

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

Non-notable idea from cryptography. A search of Google Scholar turns up only one mention in a journal article; the remaining sources are preprints on arxiv and thus unreliable. Does not pass the notability requirement for coverage in multiple reliable sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable but if feel the content is relevant - add it to another page about Cryptography. Doesn't require its own. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The relevant tickets are covered at List of United States major third party and independent presidential tickets. Additionally, the article covers three separate parties and their conflation as the "Progressive Party" risks confusing readers.

Delete as nominator Orser67 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is in fact about three separate parties that shared a name. Accordingly it should be a dab-article, with the content merged to the articles on the three successive parties. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article inexcusably unites three entirely separate American "Progressive" political movements that are NOT linked to one another, merely they all use of common English adjective. And, by the by, none are linked with the contemporary American "progressive" movement, except by that adjective.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have a disambig page Progressive Party#United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient coverage appears to have been shown to meet WP:BASIC. RL0919 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Goldstein[edit]

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

This article has been around for over 10 years and in all that time no WP:RS have appeared to back up this pianist's notability outside LDS circles. There is a Spanish article with similarly bad referencing (LDS, Amazon and AllMusic), and a French one with nothing. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NALBUM, unless we consider his collaboration with Country star Billy Dean, attributed to this one of three local mentions in the Florida Panhandle. It seems that it does meet WP:PROMO though. StonyBrook (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see coverage in state-level publications (e.g., 1 2 3 ) as well as local/regional news ( 4 5 ). Marvin just gets over the line for notability per WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is going to stay, page has to be improved. More sources added. Otherwise delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just checked on the one reference in question and it doesn't load so in current form, there's no choice but to delete. Can't have the page written without a single source. Get some sources and this could change. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The present state of the page is not the issue at question. What matters per WP:NEXIST is whether the subject is notable at all - independent of the state of referencing on the page. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC. I have added some sources to the article, which could still use some work, but there are certainly reviews of his concerts and articles about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple references to significant coverage in reliable sources have been identified and added to the article so that it clearly passes WP:GNG and deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have enough coverage to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable third-party coverage, which is one of the key requirements for WP:GNG. If this was a biography of a religious figure than it would be a different story, but for a minor musician much stronger coverage is need to ensure encyclopedic quality. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With multiple independent sources having been added, the subject passes WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In addition to a majority of the comments favoring deletion, the "keep" comments seem to appeal mostly to WP:ROUTINE coverage, which I have discounted per that guideline. RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 flu season[edit]

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

I can't find any indication based on sources that this was a significant or important flu season. It wasn't particularly lethal or widespread compared to any other year, and the CDC report for 2013-2014 doesn't refer to it as an epidemic or pandemic. I didn't see any papers about it specifically as a notable season on PubMed, Science Direct, or GScholar. Basically, it was a flu season where some people got sick and died, like any other flu season. It's not encyclopedia-level notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep flu seasons are all important, if someone wants to come to the encyclopaedia to find information on any particular flu season. The articles can evolve to include the strains that were predominant (this one is H1N1), the vaccines that were used, whether there was a mismatch between the circulating strain and the vaccine, etc. I'll improve this article at some point soon, starting with this detailed info from the CDC. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also FYI all flu seasons are pandemics. --[E.3][chat2][me] 02:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific notability guideline for pandemics/disease outbreaks/what have you (and therefore no presumption of notability). Therefore, we have to rely on WP:GNG, and in this case, there aren't enough sources specifically about this one particular season to indicate that it has any particular historical relevance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's this for Europe, as well as the CDC, Canada here, another here plenty of sources. So it meets WP:GNG. I would consider calling this the 2013-2014 Northern Hemisphere influenza season because the flu season is usually in the middle of the year in the southern hemisphere but would have to look at all related articles. --[E.3][chat2][me] 05:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:E.3's sources. Whilst there is no specific notability guide for pandemics, that shouldn't stop us using our brains: a global pandemic lasting months with coverage in multiple articles from reliable sources is always very likely to be notable. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge No indication that routine annual flu activity is independently notable year-by-year. Timeline of influenza could perhaps include some information but even with the links above I don't think this sort of news reports and statistics warrants an article for particular seasons. Expansion of the timeline or a similar History of influenza could cover multiple seasons well that incorporates this information. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It happens all the time. Nothing extraordinary about this particular year. Are we to have an article for every year? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Its encyclopaedic information to know what strain is prevalent in a season, what vaccines were used, their effectiveness, deaths, etc, in each season. Flu is the largest worldwide pandemic. It's useful information for interested readers, some may not be, I certainly am, and would use wiki as a resource when its updated, we can centralise CDC, European, and other nations etc. If it were all in ~~history of influeza~~ timeline of influenza that would be a very long article indeed. I'll try to update them when I have more time. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument to make here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any reason why this particular year is remarkable or worthy of its own entryDarktalesblog (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless article about a flu season barely anybody seems to know about. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --helpful references from different national health centers.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication this particular season was outside the norm. This is kind of similar to how heat wave articles have been handled at AfD. The even can be a big deal each year, but not inherently noteworthy because there is an expected baseline every year. Sources need to demonstrate something particularly WP:DUE for that year to even begin discussing notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wholly unsourced article and unanimity that it fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Crosby[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:UNSOURCED Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRUFT. StonyBrook (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:UNSOURCED. Can't believe it was created almost 15 years ago! MaskedSinger (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- not really useful as a merge to the main article either. Sadads (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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