Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

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 per WP:SNOW.

Coherent intelligence[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - I can't find any reliable independent sources discussing this theory. The article seems to be about an apparently esoteric theory (quantum entanglement in neurons...) devised by a single researcher. I'm not finding it theory discussed in any reliable secondary sources, just Danilov's own writings. Non-notable fringe theory. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are primary, then some press release news. Could the author be more notable than this hypothesis? Grepping in my pseudoscience related material I found no mention. This also means that there would be no reliable source available to present the topic neutrally. Therefore WP:FAILN... —Paleo Neonate – 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pseudoscience, presented as if it would be well-established results, and no notability. --mfb (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like the usual "magic" theory; as PaleoNeonate says, there is no evidence this has been discussed in other circles, therefore is just one writer's rambling. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just the old-fashioned concept of telepathy dressed up in pseudoscientific language about quantum entanglement. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and this doesn't have any. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Nonsense. - DVdm (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Very promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author of article is spamming links to their work in various articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Compare recurring phrase "...scientist, researcher in the field of communication and sociology Igor Val. Danilov..." - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 17 June 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) 00:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ulmann[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 104 games in the National League and at least 200 is needed for a skater. Subject retired today so any chance he has of making 200 is pretty much nil now. Tay87 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for coverage didn't find anything out of the ordinary for a minor league hockey player. He fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Since he's now retired, it's unlikely he's going to become more notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 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) 00:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for It..![edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable show. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Completely unsourced and poorly written article about a short-lived show which likely isn't too notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable show. Geoffroi (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 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) 04:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kelblizz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. The two "biography and net worth" sources are identical and appear to be user-submitted. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizkizayo has expressed the following concern in Special:Diff/901746041: "Please these article should not be deleted teahouse help me out here..the article has been improved and won't be edited without proper references" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Editor WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -- Begoon 04:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks more like A7 to me. No notability whatsoever and likely autobiography. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notabilty. No independent sources. Maproom (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, what has this guy even done that's notable? Giving random local disc jockeys articles is a bit redundant. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like TimTempleton and Begoon said, fails WP:GNG. User44654 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article please everyone should support these article, it is notible.Wizkizayo (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Save the article, Don't delete, other references has been added Wizkizayo (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Save - review the references or an admin should re-edit the article instead of delecting.Wizkizayo (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizkizayo: Repeating your plea isn't going to sway anyone's opinion. You need to show how and why the article should be retained.

You said you've added references, but the sources you've linked to are not reliable. Blogs, press release sites and other self-published sources aren't reliable and can't establish this person's notability.

Also saying that "an admin should re-edit the article" is shifting the responsibility onto others. The burden of evidence is on you, the contributor, to ensure that your content is verifiable from reliable sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has a list of sources that are considered reliable (and unreliable) for music-related topics.

Finally, Wikipedia does not accept articles on up-and-coming people or things. Someone or something must be already notable to be considered worthy of inclusion. Possible future fame has no effect on present notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Use of the phrase "fast rising" indicates this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Auric talk 11:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show anything convincing. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- Fails notability, the sources aren't reliable and can't provide this person's notability. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has a reliable source ,the biography and net worth on he's Google search tells more about the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famouspeople18 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Famouspeople18: I changed the • sign you had here to a *. It's for formatting. Also remember that when participating in these types of discussions remember to put your view in bold. (To do this put the text you want bold surrounded with '''. Like this '''bold''') See WP:DISCUSSAFD for more info. Thanks! OkayKenG (talk) 00:04, 19 June 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) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-7 (rocket)[edit]

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

Looks to be a dictionary definition with little third-party source to pass WP:GNG Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I think A ROCKET should be included. You will probably find a lot of news on the launch of an operation but not so much for the model. Viztor (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Viztor, but there's not much coverage of this model. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I initially did a google search in English, however do to the over simple name, there is little luck finding sources talking about the rocket. However, when I did it in Chinese, a significant amount of the reports are about the rocket. So I guess it's a keep. Viztor (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend toward a keep; there's 4 pages in this book dedicated to the model and its following variants. A sentence here. A page or two here. Similar here. Those are a couple of sources in English--seems to have some more; I expect there are a few more Chinese sources.
There does also seem to be a T-7 Russian rocket. --Izno (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, to me that seems like a list of facts and figures. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, 4 pages of prose is a list of facts and figures? Never mind the other references. See p308 et al. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, whoops it defaulted to the appendix.

Hmm, maybe it's worth combining this rocket with other similar rockets? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect here per WP:WOOD. Viztor just asked on WP:Discord if you were right, Tyw7. I would say yes you are, but I do think that the family of rockets might be notable. I've yet to look in chinese language media, but I'm optimistic. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, I tried looking online but the references are few and far in between. I think it wouldn't sufficiently pass WP:GNG. What you could do is combine the stubs together into an article about the rocket family? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: [Thank you for the ping] This appendex and a few semi-reliable news sites. I wouldn't have closed out those tabs if I thought you were going to ask haha –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: From the top of my head, it was this astro website and a few blogs (probably something called like Daily Science or whatevs). The real notability would be in Mandarin-language sources. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – I just happened to have written Wang Xiji, the rocket's designer, two weeks ago and am quite familiar with the topic. This is China's first sounding rocket and a historic milestone (the Chinese government built a monument at its first launch site, see photo in article). It is the predecessor of the Long March 1, the launch vehicle of China's first satellite. Astronautix.com has a detailed page about it [8], which I added to the article. There are also plenty of Chinese-language sources, and I expanded the article with info and sources about its development from Wang Xiji. Notable beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist to justify notability. e.g. [9][10] [11] Whether the content gets merged or expanded is an organizational question best left to local consensus among interested editors and WikiProjects. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the usual requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even when nominated this was nothing like a dictionary definition, being about a thing rather than a word or phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has significant coverage and reliable source to justify keeping. CryptoWriter (talk) 8:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep See above comments Viztor (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zanhe has established notability and has done a splendid job in rescuing this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established. Seems like another article saved by the WP:RESCUE! AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Further discussion can continue on WP:CP and WP:COIN for the copyright and conflict of interest issues, if needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial diplomacy[edit]

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

The article was created by one of the authors of the sources. Then it was continued by an account apparently connected to one of the organizations mentioned in the article. Its edit history is full of copyvio, and the latest version is still full of traces of such copyvio. It's also a complete WP:COATRACK for the Association of Certified Commercial Diplomats and Institute for Trade and Commercial Diplomacy, which doesn't seem to be notable. MarioGom (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it. The deficiencies of the current draft are quite normal problems which addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed the coatrack content and most of the copyright violations. See Earwig's Copyvio Detector for remaining infringement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:27, 14 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C Franklin[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, promotional article. Page created by Franklin's business partner (Toby Jenkins / TAJenkins) – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is almost entirely self serving and promotional. Teraplane (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marketing guru with no claim to notability, fails [[WP:GNG].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, fails WP:BASIC. Also agree, page was largely created by subject's business partner (Toby Jenkins), whose account has been exclusively used for self-promotion. Also investigating Toby Jenkins whose page is similarly suspect. Cabrils (talk) 10:09, 19 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Arnold O'Driscoll[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Minor awards, one of many people with a YouTube channel. Fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spleodrach (talk) 20:31, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and notes above. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The single claim to notability (involvement in one young person's film-making competition) is not substantive enough to meet the criteria. The WP:MINORS and WP:CHILD policies should also be considered here. (Both in terms of the article and this discussion.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable streaming personality. Awards do not convey notablity, lacks coverage in reliable sourcing to suggest GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In full agreement will all of the above. The award itself itself only gets mentioned by local media, and the subject only gets two passing mentions in local newspapers, connected with award. Not enough to even satisfy WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 03:46, 17 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Media Portal[edit]

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

This appears to be a form of advocacy rather than an encyclopedia article - I considered a G11 CSD, but thought it should be looked at here instead. The text is full of POV, editorializing and unsourced arguments in favour of the proposal it's describing, and the sourcing is a mess of facebook pages and YouTube videos, plus an editorial in the 'opinions' section of a newspaper's website, and a couple of documents on Google drive that I'm not prepared, from a safety point of view, to download and open. It's perfectly possible that this is notable, but this article fails WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ADVOCACY, and is TNT-worthy GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a good sign when an article cites something in Google Drive. Having said that, I'll withhold judgment until I look at it further. UPDATE: Even Modi's website about his Quest for Transparency doesn't mention this. As such, and in the absence of any other hits in a Google search, I'd have to go with delete. In addition, I had to remove an entire section that seemed to copy and paste the proposed drafts as it violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Earwig's tool said that it was not a copyright violation, but even if it isn't it's still not appropriate for the article if it's kept.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I believe the article has been sufficiently improved, and adequate sources introduced, such that I can vote keep on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I'll have to go back to delete given continued NPOV issues. Also, the main editor's continuing tendentious behavior, while not directly relevant, does not reflect well on this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson I admire the effort you've put in to trying to improve this article, but I can't understand your reasoning for believing that notability has been established. Unless I'm missing something, all of the sources brought up at the article talk page are websites belonging to groups that are advocating for this proposal - not a single genuinely independent source has been identified so far. I don't see how we can get this past WP:GNG with the sources that have been brought up to date - am I missing something? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a fair point. Especially Modi's website on transparency does not mention it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John M Wolfson,

The article we are discussing is a proposed law which is part of a public movement. While the Modi link you have referred to is not a website, it is only a general statement on increasing Transparency.

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ParthaSarathiMishra, do you have any sources from opponents of this proposal, or at least from neutral observers? That would make for a much better article. Without such sources I might have to change my !vote back to delete (albeit without prejudice for recreation if/when it becomes more notable.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John M Wolfson,

Please QUOTE the wiki policy which says that opposing view or neutral view is necessary for article in Wikipedia to be acceptable? I did not find anything like that in the Wiki Policies.

I feel the editors themselves do not follow any Wiki policies. They just give links of the wiki policies and then make their own decisions subjectively. They do not compare any articles and do not take care about any discrimination even if unintentional which might be done in the treatments to the articles.

The whole exercise goes against betterment of wiki and betterment of society. I oppose such activities.

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy (and it is a policy, not a guideline, so must be adhered to) is WP:NPOV. The article has to take a neutral, dispassionate approach to the subject - it should not be trying to say that the proposal is a good (or a bad) idea. We can and should quote what other people have said about it - the sources you've identified so far would be sufficient to establish that these particular political groups are in favour of it, which could be mentioned in a neutral article - but we are still lacking independent, third party sources which would demonstrate notability. If all any of us can find discussing any subject is promotional material, we don't write the article, we wait until uninvolved sources write about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Girth Summit,

Again you do not abide by your own given links and give your own viewpoint.

Quoting from the link given by you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)

“All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

Please note the word “published”. Nowhere any Wiki policy says what you are saying that opposing viewpoints or neutral points are necessary, it only says that those viewpoints published as of that time should be given and that is what I have done.

So, once again I would request you to quote relevant portions of the links you give and using those portions establish how you got to the conclusion you got to.

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no reason for the article to cite neutral or opposing viewpoints, on the grounds that no source has ever been published about it that is not the website of a political party or pressure group that is campaigning for it. That is a very eloquent argument for the deletion of this article. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparent Complaint Procedure. Promo-spammer. In case versions don't match, take this as a delete based on my argumentation in the linked AfD.∯WBG^converse 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear John M Wolfson,

I found one difference of view point given in one of the sources. I have added that in the article. Please see that.

You have talked about Neutral point of view. I looked up the Wikipedia Policy on that subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)

Quoting from the same – “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

Please note the word “published”. Nowhere any Wiki policy says that opposing viewpoints or neutral points are necessary, it only says that those viewpoints published as of that time should be given and that is what I have done.

Should we really follow what is written in the Wikipedia policy articles? If yes, I would request you to quote relevant portions of the articles of the links you give and using those portions establish how you got to the conclusion you got to.

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ParthaSarathiMishra, I appreciate your effort, but that viewpoint is still supporting the proposal. As Girth Summit said earlier, if no opposition to the proposal or even an unbiased appraisal of it has been published, then it is not "notable" under Wikipedia's definition of that term and thus not article-worthy. Please do not take offense at this, but Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for ideas. I wish you the best of luck for yourself and the proposal; maybe if it does in fact become law it can be considered for Wikipedia, but as of right now I still don't think it meets the standards. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary of all the points I have made why my article does not violate any of the Wikipedia policies.
Please do not reply directly to this, request to put your views separately. I will add points here if necessary.

In reply to allegations on me and my article that the article is violating advocacy etc, I have gone through the Wikipedia policy links and found that article does not violate any Wikipedia policy. On the talk page of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transparent_Media_Portal) and on this page, I have elaborated on this in detail. I would request admin to go through those.

On the talk page of the article and on this page, I have quoted from various Wikipedia policy links like those on Advocacy, What Wikipedia is not, Secondary source and Neutral point of view and showed that I or the sources quoted in the article do not gain personally or politically. I or the sources quoted by me are not the authors of the proposed law or part of organisation which is author of proposed law. So, the sources of the article are independent, secondary and verifiable.

Even if law passes, I or the sources I have quoted do not get political gains since only author of law gets any name or credit. For example, take Frank-Dodd Act, there is no credit for those thousands who must have campaigned for it.

On other hand, the editors nominating article for deletion and supporting it have only made allegations and given links of Wikipedia policies along with distorted interpretation of Wikipedia policies. For example - Nowhere any Wiki policy says that opposing viewpoints or neutral points are necessary, it only says that those viewpoints published as of that time should be given and that is what I have done. This is clear violation of Wikipedia policy, a policy misuse of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_railroad#Policy_misuse). I requested the editors several times to quote portions of the Wikipedia links they give and use those portions to establish how they got to the conclusion they got to. But the editors for reasons best known to them have ignored these requests and engaging in policy misuse of Wikipedia. I do not know the exact reason why editors are doing this, but this is very unfortunate that this is happening which is spoiling the editing atmosphere of Wikipedia, which is a very useful site.

Under such circumstances, the discussion becomes highly subjective and misleading and misinterpreting the Wikipedia policies and harmful to both Wikipedia and society at large. So, I would be only happy to discuss if someone is quoting directly from the Wikipedia policy links and establishing how the editor came to the conclusion he came to.

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 17:42, 20 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Treacy (video blogger)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Teen YouTube vlogger with < 5,000 followers. Has received minor awards at local level, but fails WP:GNG Spleodrach (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spleodrach (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot locate reliable, secondary sources that establish notability. He won a local film festival that I'm not entirely sure is notable at first glance. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This guy has hardly done more than me. Fails the notability guidelines. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bloody arrogant thing to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and notes above. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The single claim to notability (involvement in a young person's film-making competition) is not substantive enough to meet the criteria. The WP:MINORS and WP:CHILD policies should also be considered here. (Both in terms of the article and this discussion.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and notes above. VViking_TalkEdits 16:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very far short of WP:GNG . A young film maker who won a minor award in his locality. That is all of any significance. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No international significance, no reliable info, nothing makes this guy notable. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds promising, but he has not established enough notability yet.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:14, 20 June 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) 00:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hauntings of the Hollywood Cemetery[edit]

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

Duplicate topic to Hollywood Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia); an implausible redirect and nothing to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially the entirety of the information on the supposed hauntings were taken straight from this article, which is hardly a reliable source. While references on both of the monuments discussed here are easily found, as they are well-known landmarks, references from reliable sources discussing the so-called supernatural aspects of them are not so easily found. The actual verifiable information on the monuments are already included in the main Hollywood Cemetery (Richmond, Virginia) article, making this a needless WP:FORK with an implausible search term as its title. Rorshacma (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 20 June 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) 03:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tadgh Quill[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The awards and successes are all at a low level and very local. The music videos have not enjoyed significant success and the show horses are not in any sense notable. Almost (?) qualifies for speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Probably self-authored article.~~ Fails WP:GNG, Owning horses does not make you notable. Spleodrach (talk)
Delete - Not notable, attempts to cooperate with creator were met with hostility and a distaste for established practices and norms. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance and notability are subjective indicators of value, defined by a person's perspective and/or perception. 1/ Regarding awards and successes, 'low level' is an ambiguous term when you look at it on a relative scale. As for 'local', what could this mean? Hamlet, Village, Town, City, County, State, Landmass, continent, planet, solar system?

2/How significant is significant? And significant in comparison to what?

3/There are plenty of perception based arguments based on horse showing. This may be important to those with an interest in equine sport. It could be argued by fans of that interest that is more important than what many media outlets regard as 'mainstream' sports (soccer, baseball, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not the person whom is the subject of the article. Ye were looking for sources and I searched the Internet far and wide for them. I don't put my nose in your articles, Spleodrach. Why can't you just mind your own business before jumping to conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL. Spleodrach (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see much civility in you branding my work as 'vanity' and 'self authored' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stall the ball here now, Spleodrach, I've just seen your revision of your first comment, where you removed "vanity" and added 'probably' before 'self authored'. Also adding 'please be civil'. This is at best, manipulative gas lighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck that comment so. Spleodrach (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced in front by 'owning horses does not make you notable'. I don't remember ever saying that subject had owned horses, but that they had shown horses and competed them in dressage competitions, based on newspapers and other sources found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How fascinating! Still doesn't make the subject notable though. Spleodrach (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be fascinating to someone with an interest in horses. You're just being obstinately passive-aggressive under the guise of civility. Having a think, owning a horse may make one notable through word of mouth e.g 'oh look, the john smiths, they own a horse, sure they're mad into them'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no online sources that suggest subject owns a horse. Why are you picking at that bone in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been great fun chatting with you! I've made my !vote clear above, you should also !vote to keep rather than just talking to me. Maybe your arguments on horses will sway other editors, let's hear what they have to say. Toodle pipski! Spleodrach (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this article Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in making pages about politicians and other people connected to books, film and TV in someway or another. I stumbled across subject whilst searching for sources related to Timothy Quill . This is not a self authored article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to put emphasis on the 'guideline' in General Notability Guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mine is a very firm delete recommendation. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:YTN or WP:ENT or related guidelines. Even the claimed references/links in the article itself do not refer to the subject in any substantive way. And several do not mention the subject at all. To the extent that their use to support the text seems disingenuous at best. I can find no other substantive coverage of the subject. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe makes a 'substantive' reference? All sources mentioned name of subject on their descriptions on Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have created stubs with far less info provided and their notability has not even been questioned. I will not accept the deletion of this article until other stubs have been deleted, as i wish to see consistency within the deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How come a page about Brooklyn Beckham can exist with the same opposition placed against this article?

I see a lack of consistency within this process.

Had it not been for this article, I would never had heard of Brooklyn Beckham, only for discovering him looking for pages created about teenagers. He may be notable to a particular segment of the population, but not to me. Subjectivity is at play here. I will not accept the deletion of this page until Brooklyn Beckham's page is deleted. How on earth could subject showing horses not be notable, when Beckham having the ability to speak multiple languages is? My perception deems there to be little consistency in this process. I'm sure it would be possible that offline articles refer to subject in more detail, as the horse community seems more quiet about online media publication, while i have seen plenty of national horse related publications for sale in newsagents before. I seem almost tempted to find subject on social media and ask for offline references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shamshamster1234, he has received more coverage and thus passes WP:GNG. We have policies and guidelines to help us determine what is notable. WP:GNG is the most basic and generally applicable. Please have a read of it and explain why you believe this is notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has received more coverage does not necessarily make someone notable, there is room for subjectivity within Wikipedia's objective guidelines. Also, guidelines are not even the same as rules, there's a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shamshamster1234, regardless of what we call them, guidelines are a form of rule. If the person does not pass WP:GNG or a different notability guideline, you must be able to make a very convincing argument that it is notable. Also, in order to remove some subjectivity, Wikipedia does not assess notability outside of reliable, independent coverage, unless covered by a specific notability guideline. If someone is notable, they will eventually receive sufficient coverage (excluding known long-standing biases). StudiesWorld (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not rules.

To me, it appears that this article provides more information and references than several pages related to teenagers existing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer take this process seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel an arrogant atmosphere here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that subject was pictured in a reference that was later described as not being in citation given, this is wrong and I therefore further question the deletion process, this was a careless move by other Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The level of arrogance I've seen here on Wikipedia is astonishing, from messages I've received on my talk page, now to this, I can't believe it.

This is a joke of a process.

My quote from most recent edit: (citations given for band were based on previous criticism regarding band, not person whom is subject. Found refs related to Pat Shortt on Google images, added horse ref on google images, pictured as YH champion at Equifestival, after researching it on the internet, seems worthy to add to me. Subject is pictured in citation given regarding Kathleen Lynch, therefore adding 'not in citation given' is wrong. Subject's name appeared in description below every link on Google Search.)

my quote from most recent edit: (found photo references regarding una dream ticket on google images - this must be it - old description must have been removed from webpage despite remaining cached.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless ye purge the '2002 births' section, this article contains more info than many articles on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong Delete, not notable in any shape or form.VViking_TalkEdits 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, might just be WP:TOOSOON. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake, are ye not taking in cultural factors and other perception related elements when it comes to WP:GNG ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamshamster1234 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll bite. What are "cultural factors and other perception related elements" when they are at home? Guliolopez (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not any doubt in my mind that this article does not meet any guideline, including WP:BIO on top of the ones per Guliolopez. First, his "video-blogging" works receive close to no hits on Google: a music clip he co-produced with a little over 2,000 views, and a short film for which he won second place in the junior category of the Ireland's Young Filmaker of the Year 2015. Second, his Youtube channel also scores slightly over 100 subscribers. No secondary source picks up his subscriber count, yet alone his channel, which fails the WP:YTN essay. There's really not much else online besides trivial mentions. --Pilaz (talk) 03:15, 17 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Gopal Bhadury[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 13 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Babu Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACTOR. ∯WBG^converse 18:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 13 June 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) 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rêve d'étain[edit]

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

Non notable book. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Geoffroi (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this book "written by several students and their teacher" fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 18 June 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. WP:SNOW close as well as due to nominator not doing adequate research of sources. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Hazard[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are niche review sites and commercial sites. Nothing reliable and independent. Searches reveal more of the same but nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metacritic gives at least 5 sites of recognized reliability for reviews of the game (IGN, PC Gamer, GameSpot, PALGN, Eurogamer). A news search shows some additional coverage indepth about the game from other gaming sites. There's also the sequel which alone is no notable, but is notable together with the first game (eg both games together have better collective notability than either alone). --Masem (t) 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've dumped over 20 valid reliable sources on the talk page, probably more than enough for this to be GA if a motivated editor is up for it. Not counting the reviews and plenty of duplicate announcement type sources I skipped, there's even some interviews and development news as well as sales data. During my search I saw plenty of sources about the sequel that I did not include, to add to Masem's commentary about it, so those are missing in my dump. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in a very poor state, but that is no reason for deletion per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Combining Beat Hazard and it's DLC, Ultra's coverage (the game released as Beat Hazard Ultra on consoles and iOS), there is Destructoid [12], Kotaku [13], Shack News [14], IGN [15], AdWeek [16], Pocket Gamer [17], Touch Arcade [18], Geek.com [19], Gamespot [20], Eurogamer [21], Push Square (sister site of Nintendo Life) [22], and Digitally Downloaded (reliable per WP:VG/RS) [23]. Passes WP:GNG easily, and I would suggest the nominator to withdraw the AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely a lazily/poorly written article, but this nomination is equally bad, if you found “no evidence of notability” while the above three editors easily found a ton of sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 14 June 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) 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Swart[edit]

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

Not notable, promotional, was originally written by the subject. The studio the subject founded might be notable, but the article is basically a list of notable people the subject has worked with (and notability doesn't derive like that). creffett (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:14, 20 June 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 ACM-W. From the length of this discussion, I thought this would be a close call, but there is no argument that necessitates having two separate articles here. The ACM-W article is just over 5K, and the list is 7K, meaning that the merger of these will result in a still fairly short article. Consensus is clear that there should not be a separate article, with the prominent division in the discussion being whether it should be merged or deleted outright. Since merging retains the information in the encyclopedia, and there is not a strong consensus for outright deletion (with several editors being fine with delete or merge) the outcome is to merge and redirect. bd2412 T 01:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACM-W Celebrations[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right. Merge into ACM-W Rathfelder (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ACM is one of the premier world-wide computing organizations and ACM-W represents a substantial number of members in a large organization merging the lists into the main ACM-W page would unnecessarily complicate the page. When reviewing [reasons for deletion], it doesn't meet the criteria for deletion:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Redundant or otherwise useless templates
Categories representing overcategorization
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Merging growing lists into the main page would not clarify the information or make it more accessible. Instead, the list of celebrations needs to be updated to include additional celebrations. We could definitely use more help getting the articles completed. Thank you for your interest.Cypherquest (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive independent coverage to establish notability. All major organizations plan events but it is not Wikipedia's place to catalogue their histories, especially without third-party sources. The themes of events could be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable subject, and mostly supported by external links/primary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These are noteworthy events^[1] and the sources are not primary - they are the largest gatherings of this type with tens of thousands of people from many countries across the globe. We'll add additional external references, but they are independently important events in this field.Cypherquest (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable subject - one conference is listed on the White House archives as part of the ongoing legacy of United States Navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper.^[2] Please note Wikipedia administrator instructions that "...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguate", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."

--Cypherquest (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDIR Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not a directory, but there are many list pages in Wikipedia, on less important topics. Note the external references include the White House archives. These are gatherings of significant interest across a wide selection of academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations, including some of the largest tech companies in the US. It doesn't justify deleting a growing list of the evolution of these events. There are over 240,000 list pages in Wikipedia^[3] - this topic qualifies. See List of lists of lists (characterized as incomplete) and Portal:Contents/Lists.

Cypherquest (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to copy-paste chunks of WP (even the most irrelevant) as a response to everyone with whom you disagree? Because that's very easy to do, but it's also a long way from a reasoned refutation. Also please remember that some editors have been here a long time, and are already pretty familiar with relevant policiess. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No — not all. I'm a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and if I find myself searching for specific information than I include it where it might be helpful. We want all Wikipedia articles and discussions to maintain the principles of Wikipedia and having the specific content available helps me understand where there might be differences and/or a misunderstanding between those more experienced and myself (or others who might like to participate). The list is specifically being discussed in terms of the original suggestion of non-notability and now in response to the WP:NOTDIR suggestion. We're waiting to see if the additional information presented addresses the specific concerns of the original commenters, while keeping the conversation accessible. We should be good on Wiki principles and policies now (at least until we get new suggestion in Wikilingo). :) Cypherquest (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ACM-W is clearly notable, but this list, without any context, is not. It would be much more useful merged into the main article. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The ACM-W is notable - and these celebrations are noteworthy in their own right. The original celebration was recognized by the US White House on their page "The Untold History of Women in Science and Technology in the entry for United States Navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper.^[2] "Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper was at the forefront of computer and programming language development from the 1930s through the 1980s. One of the crowning achievements of her 44-year career was the development of computer languages written in English, rather than mathematical notation — most notably, the common business computing language known as COBOL, which is still in use today. "Hopper's legacy is still honored by the annual Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference. WITH COMMENTARY FROM U.S. CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER MEGAN SMITH. SOURCE: US NAVY". In addition to this noteworthy beginning, the conferences have attracted the participation of technology notables including Anita Hill, Priscilla Chan co-founder of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Justine Cassell of Carnegie Mellon University, one of the top universities in Computer Science. The list describes the expansion of celebrations globally to include the largest gathering of women in computing in India. The history and expansion of these events meet the criteria for a list article on Wikipedia.Cypherquest (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said, the list needed context. I've added the information about noteworthiness to the beginning of the article. Thank you for the recommendation.Cypherquest (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's improved sufficiently to keep, thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The References subsection of this page was two levels too high and consequentially messed up the log page. This has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues been addressed and the original proposer's concerns have been withdrawn as noted above. When discussing, note the reasons you are proposing deletion, and provide justification according to Wikipedia principles. A decision to delete is not based on a vote, but on the principles and discussion raised. Do not delete the article without clearly explaining your reasons and justification for doing so.Cypherquest (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Facebook's Sandberg calls on women to be aggressive leaders". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
^ ^a ^b "The Untold History of Women in Science and Technology". The White House. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
^ "Wikipedia:Statistics", Wikipedia, 2019-05-06, retrieved 2019-06-06

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion after initially closing it as "delete" to get a clearer consensus, if possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues been addressed and the original proposer's concerns have been withdrawn as noted above. When discussing, note the reasons you are proposing deletion, and provide justification according to Wikipedia principles. A decision to delete is not based on a vote, but on the principles and discussion raised. Do not delete the article without clearly explaining your reasons and justification for doing so.Cypherquest (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: It seems this was briefly listed at DRV before I relisted the discussion after Cypherquest contacted me on my talk page. I was not notified about or aware of the DRV. Sandstein 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here after reviewing this at DRV. Looking through the sources, I think this fails WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and potentially WP:PROMO. The parent article has some WP:NORG and WP:PROMO concerns as well as it's sourced entirely to its own website, but I think it's likely notable and just needs to be fixed. These haven't been discussed as a set anywhere and a lot of the sources don't even mention these are ACM-W celebrations. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into ACM-W I also came here from the DRV. This appears to fail WP:LISTN because the group of listed items hasn't, been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. If it has, and I've just not looked in the right place, please correct me per WP:THREE. Some of the top material in this article could well be merged back into the parent, but not the entire list, per WP:NOTDIR. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Roy, based on my examination of the articles and potential sources (or lack thereof). And I also came here by way of DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duplicate !vote struck What's DRV? I can tell many of the editors are experienced, so I'm sure you've read many Wiki list articles. How many list articles (of our 240k) are you trying to get cleaned up? There's an awful lot of list articles that never reach this degree of notability - especially in a field that recognizes this as a critical issue.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]Cypherquest (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Writers, Staff (2019-06-14). "Women in Computer Science". ComputerScience.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
^ "Women in Computer Science: 6 Assumptions to Avoid | Rasmussen College". www.rasmussen.edu. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
^ "Current trends for women graduating with computer science degrees troubling". Progressive Policy Institute. 2018-08-07. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
^ "Cracking the code: Why aren't more women majoring in computer science?". UCLA. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
^ "When computer programming was 'women's work'". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
^ Quesenberry, Carol Frieze, Jeria L. "How Computer Science at CMU Is Attracting and Retaining Women". cacm.acm.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Algar, Selim (2019-03-25). "Girls are acing the AP computer science test in record numbers: DOE". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

DRV is WP:DRV - Deletion Review. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be better as part of the main article. I cant see anything gained in having the list as a seperate article.Rathfelder (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, besides the Grace Hopper Conferences, most are just non-notable events, be aware of the amount of events held or sponsored by ACM and associated chapters every year, they are not automatically notable. Viztor (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, as Viztor just said. - Nabla (talk) 18:36, 22 June 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. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The only people arguing to keep are WP:SPA's and the article's creator, none of whom cited any policy-based reasons to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobarz Kidifa[edit]

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

Upcoming musician, Has not gained enough coverage to satisfy WP:BIO, possible WP:TOOSOON. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The musician has fair coverage which can satisfy WP:BIO, the page can stay and be developed Gukura (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The musician's biography has some coverage indeed and is a relevant topic in Nigeria as he has been featured on one of the biggest blogs in Nigeria called pulse.

KEEP I believe we can keep developing the article. Lets keep it Hurungudo (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Hurungudo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

keep I have also noted the subject has fair coverage and the article can be improved. Let's keep it. KateKate263 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I did further research and added more references as advised by my fellow contributors, thank you for helping with the notification it certainly helped in the improvement of the article. More information about the subjected will added only when the facts can be referenced so will await more articles which will come as we keep developing the article.Hurungudo (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopping we keep the page so that we ~~keep~~ developing it together as a team. Kind Regards

Hurungudo please stop WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, we already know your opinion. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceethekreator My apologies. I did not mean to WP:Bludgeoning. I apologise.Hurungudo (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fils WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has not won or been nominated for a major award in Nigeria or South Africa. None of his music releases have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP. The Pulse is one of biggest Nigerian publications where he was featured, yes it is a growing musician so he can have space on Wiki.Hurungudo (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Went through the page references, they are OK enough to keep the article. I agree that we can develop it. KateKate263 (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lets keep the page~~, i did a research on the refs provided, i saw some credible once and besides, since this discussion the page has improved with more refs and corrections so i strongly think we keep the page as it keep improving.Gukura (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Versace1608. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note Two of the people who submitted keep votes, User:KateKate263 and User:Gukura, appear to be WP:SPAs one of whom did not exist until after the AFD started. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 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 Withdrawn. In reality, I should have just redirected Draft:UlinkCollege per Zanhe. Also, see this statement by the article creator. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulink College[edit]

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

Draft:UlinkCollege

Basically, after a bunch of page moves, YZ27818 made both this page and the above linked draft. They are substantially the same, but I feel like this page would be better served as a draft. Since the draft already exists, this page can be either merged with the draft or deleted. I've spent too much time wondering about this to be honest. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previously mentioned page moves can be seen in User:MJL/CSD log#May 2019. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a for-profit educational company that operates a chain of major international schools in China. As high schools are considered notable, a chain of them is naturally even more so. Unless there are other concerns such as COI or copyvio, I don't see why this should be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanhe: because there is an ongoing redundant fork of the article in the draftspace. The article is either ready or its not, and I was less favorable to this one at the time of the nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That can be easily fixed by redirecting the draft to this article. Inexperienced editors unfamiliar with redirects often create multiple copies of their articles under different titles. -Zanhe (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the draft is older, that'll probably need a WP:HISTMERGE, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary since the draft and the article are created by the same editor around the same time, and are more or less identical. -Zanhe (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article describe a well-known international educational group and its schools in China. This wiki is not a promotion. It is written based on the resources. No further interpretation is made personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.123.225 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for the article to be published and the draft deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YZ27818 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Procedural. No deletion rationale put forward by nom. AFD is not cleanup, but deciding if the *topic* is notable. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 14 June 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. Tone 16:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Thomas (graphic artist)[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO. Editor was subject and has a conflict of interest, referring to the article as "my biography." 9H48F (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep I found and added four decent sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep, per AuthorAuthor's additions; I added a few more as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some content and a couple of sources. Subject appears to be established as an artist in London, Berlin and New York, and has received wide media coverage, which establishes notability. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced added during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 20 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manjunath VK[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Sources are about film rather than himself TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Most of the sources I have mentioned are where people have quoted him. You can see his name in all the links present.

Thank you Abdul Khalid M (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the nominator and could not find any adequate sources. The article seems fine on paper. but when you investigate the sources, it shows no notability. IMDB is not a source as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:13, 20 June 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. Tone 16:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Kapoor[edit]

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

~~Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR , Being wife of an Indian Musician doesnt pass this for an stand alone Article. Shringhringshring^📞 11:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shringhringshring^📞 11:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in many notable television series and therefore passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wedding coverage is typical Indian news gossip coverage, don't let it fool you into thinking she is not already notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a prime example of what is wrong with this website. Appearance does not equal notability when there are no reliable sources to prove that. That NACTOR interpretation is getting abused left and right around here. All the article says is she is an actress who got married. Then an unsourced laundry list. With poor sources about her wedding. Trillfendi (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. probably notable person but I could not find any strong news about her as an actress on google, her all of news related of Himesh Reshammiya.-Nahal (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Checking the Wikipedia articles about the shows she has been in, it seems that she has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable shows, and therefore meets WP:NACTOR. Not all of her roles are significant, but her roles in Sati...Satya Ki Shakti, Zaara, Yes Boss and Jugni Chali Jalandhar appear to be. Searching Indian media of the relevant years would probably give more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:35, 20 June 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambisonic software[edit]

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

This is nothing more than list cruft and a directory. More importantly, it's a WP:LINKFARM without a single existing article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTLINKFARM WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Praxidicae, thank you for the notification about this AfD discussion. If it is now generally accepted Wikipedia policy to cut down on the number of "List of..." articles, then I won't argue for keeping it. If that is not the case however, I would argue that it does no harm and is actually quite useful for people doing research on Ambisonics, this page's parent article, and its several related pages. That also refutes your argument that there is "no single existing article". As to your allegation of a "link farm": it is certainly not intended as such, but rather to complement said series of articles. I note in the revision history that it is quite healthy in the sense that multiple Wikipedians have contributed to this page in a constructive fashion since I created the original version, and there has been no spamming. I also note that you have personally been in involved in an edit war on this page, which seems to have prompted you to nominate the article for deletion.

Furthermore, not every addition of a research project by an involved author is necessarily bad. With about a decade of experience in the field, I'm confident to say that the additions you objected to are on-topic, relevant and shared in the spirit of openness rather than for self-promotion.

Since the vast majority of links on this page are to open-source software, I would argue that they constitute valuable "further reading" material. I'd be open to discuss whether commercial software should be listed here. I agree it would be inappropriate in most cases, the reason it was done here is that software in this field used to be very scarce, and if anyone objects, let's discuss removing that section. Keep Nettings (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This, as pointed out above, is not a website to list things that exist, nor is it a catalogue. A bunch of links provide no value to readers and violate pretty much every policy and guideline. Praxidicae (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps the unwitting instigator of Praxidicae's motion to seek deletion of this page, I am of course in no real position to make arguments for or against it.

However, for what it's worth, I am of the same opinion as Nettings, and I hope the admins lend more weight to his arguments, rather than to those made by people not involved in this field. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomccormack (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists like this may be useful, but certainly not as a Wikipedia article (so many inline external links, no real encyclopedic content, horrible!). Maybe hosting this info somewhere else would be better idea than trying to save an unsalvageable article. Note copy of this article exists also in user space of the article creator. Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 17 June 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. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraaj Parashar[edit]

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

Insignificant roles in some movies, no signs of a notable contribution to the field. Even deep with searches I couldn't find much on why he is notable WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in at least three notable films and has attracted much newspaper coverage as shown in the article although not formatted properly. He is mainly known for being one of the first actors in an explicit homosexual mainstream film, passes WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails NACTOR; I deem A306's claim to notability to lie under the purview of BLP1E.∯WBG^converse 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per below. ∯WBG^converse 14:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Parashar already has a section in the article Dunno Y... Na Jaane Kyon, but perhaps a merge could help with things like getting better citations. Per Winged Blades of Godric, this article is WP:BLP1E. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : As per TheTechnician27, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple (3) notable films. The fact that his parents disowned him is not relevant to meeting NACTOR. The article can be cleaned up easily. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:50, 21 June 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Citizen's Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The protocol was used for a time by notable institutions (not a sign of notabilility--WP:INHERITWEB), but it doesn't appear it rose to the level that third-parties were talking about it. Orville1974 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ICB is mentioned in several published Internet-related books from the 1990s; for example, look through the results of this Google Books search. I think this qualifies as "third parties were talking about it". It may be old and obscure now, but it did reach a reasonable threshhold of notability. (Full disclosure: I myself use ICB to keep in touch with several longtime friends.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Howell/CN for "was used for a time". --moof (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colin Douglas Howell. SJK (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notability is not temporary. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:11, 20 June 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. Weakly, as people said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Donald Cochrane Hopkins[edit]

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

Borderline case that I don't think quite meets WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NCREATIVE. The only significant coverage in an independent source is the Herald Scotland piece that is mostly an interview (I found nothing else when searching online). While the subject has apparently written for multiple notable sketch shows such as Not the Nine O'Clock News, he was not pivotal enough of a member of any of them to get even passing mention in any of their Wikipedia articles. I was unable to find any reviews in reliable sources of the books that the subject has written. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep. I added two reviews in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The two sources found by E.M.Gregory and The Herald Scotland profile are probably enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, as Rebecca Green says, sourcing on the page carries him over the bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there are just enough sources to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:57, 21 June 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. Tone 16:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Chaney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The referenced book about the Hearsts, despite having been published by a "real" publisher, does not appear to have gained any significant coverage, and being a senior editor of Variety does not axiomatically confer noteworthiness. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources on a 1981 book and a mid-20th century journalism career will require archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I fleshed out a reliably-sourced page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:AUTHOR per reviows of book in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Baltimore Sun that are now on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 20 June 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. Based on the discussion here, this topic is missing the substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable secondary sources that notability guidelines require for an article to stand. The keep camp either has not provided any sources or they have been shown to be inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Education Matrix[edit]

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

I searched multiple sources for Education Matrix and while I found a couple of different theories with that title non of them seemed independently notable. Once I search specifically for the theory with the theorists name the first three google results where the theorists websites or articles he had written. I was unable to find verifiable reliable independent sources showing notability of this theory. VViking_TalkEdits 13:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can see people chiming in already in the Talk page of Education Matrix. This is a topic of discussion in many of the education technology conference for K12 education in the US. Admittedly it is a narrow field but that has NEVER been an issue in WIkipedia. Apparently osme editor decided I had such an overwhelming COI that they needed to move against this article even though I don't work for an organization associated with it, didn't author the term or the idea, and have no monetary or official relationship. I IN FACT tagged myself before even publishing the article as having some COI because I have presented at conferences with the author of the term. This is clearly not a article that should be deleted and it should be allowed to be developed. I personally am happy to pause editing it if the community decides that is appropriate but this is clearly not a good candidate for deletion. KEEP. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that matters is the sourcing, and this article has zero independent sources that are about the subject, so it should be deleted per WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EdMatrix was included in Appendix A of this iNACOL document published in May 2016. In that case it was labeled "An Education Standards Matrix". The underlying theory is Redd's "four layer framework for data standards" which has been more widely referenced. The EdMatrix builds on the four layer framework, adding a classification dimension. Perhaps there should also be a page for "four layer framework for data standards" or at least include that in a history section on the EdMatrix page. Jgoodell2 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC) — Jgoodell2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stephen Coller wrote about Redd's "Four Layer Framework for Data Standards" in his forkingeducation blog on August 10, 2011 Jgoodell2 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other references to and inclusion of the underlying Four Layer Framework by authoritative organizations (SETDA, CEDS, Ed-Fi) and people other than Redd are here:

http://www.smarterapp.org/documents/Smarter_Balanced_Data_Format_Specification_Standards-v1.0.pdf

http://www.setda.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Data-to-Information.pdf

https://www.slideshare.net/FrankBWalsh/education-data-standards-overview

https://www.ed-fi.org/assets/2018/09/2017-Ed-Fi-Bootcamp-Introduction-101-Ed-Fi-Technology.pdf

Jgoodell2 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC) — Jgoodell2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redd wrote the appendix of Iancol document, so that one is not independent. Your other sources are a collection of self published materials, so not usable for our purposes. I spot checked a couple and they don't seem to include the phrase 'Education Matrix.' We need independent sources from reputable publishers (like the academic press or newspapers), that are about this topic. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps a case of TOOSOON but I do not find the kind of sourcing in general interest of education specific publications (including ed news sources or databases like ERIC) to suggest notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 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) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will Buxton[edit]

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

Seems to me a minor journe4, I don't think that the sources are strong enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Will Buxton is very notable in F1 motorsports as a journalist. He's probably among the most recognizable in the sport. I think his work for NBC Motorsports and as a presenter for F1's official coverage meets notability criteria. Sasquatch t|c 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasquatch: he doesn't present official F1 coverage, only the analysis on their website/social media channels. SSSB (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

@SSSB: F1's official coverage is posted through their website... Each independent broadcaster has their own team to provide commentary, but he is most certainly a presenter for F1's official media side. Additionally, Paddock Pass (which is his co-creation if not entirely his creation) is probably one of the most well known English F1 segments. Sasquatch t|c 19:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasquatch: - you've changed my mind and I have therefore changed my opinion below. SSSB (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:NPEOPLE and WP:JOURNALIST (his work for the official F1 website/social media channels isn't enough to satisfy criteria #3 as he only presents, he doesn't (co)-create them). SSSB (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weakly, Sasquatch has changed my mind along with some contemplation, his work on the fore front and sole presenter of F1's official coverage on social media and F1's official website (how F1 plans on getting all of their new fans) just makes him notable, along with paddock pass which he apparently did co-create (F1 onlines most regular feature) threfore satisfing WP:JOURNALIST. SSSB (talk) 08:53, 18 June 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. This discussion is a bit difficult to process as so much of it revolves around the actions of specific editors and around the question of whether this is a joke, none of which are germane to the scope of a deletion discussion where we are trying to answer the question of whether an article/page should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. On this front, most arguments are in favour of deletion for lack of notability and there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary posted, so delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Yolo County Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

No notable tag team title. The title is a joke, just cardboard belts which were created for a storyline. Sources are WP:ROUTINE ([24]) since are reports of the event. It was "created" yesterday and it's unknown if the promotion will keep the joke or is just one day thing. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established. Its made one appearance and nothing stating its officially recognized. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep part of the deletion argument is Original Research, no one has provided a Reliable Source stating that this was a joke. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While assuming good faith i do want to point out that the AFD nominator has removed portions of thr article that were well sourced, suspicious that sources to help put the championship in context was removed before the AFD. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed no notable stuff. For example, the reception is just "the public said YOLO" and has no relationship with the 24/7 title. Other things are OR, like "it's part of a local promotion" or "the history of the title is unknown before 2019". The source in the table doesn't mention the title, just HM defeated two jobbers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said "important context", comparing it to the last championship introduction, which was met with boos and jeers, while this had he crowd behind the title, with sources, provides context for the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HHH Pedrigree: Are you sure "history is unknown prior to June 11, 2019" is considered OR? Since it means that there's no sourced proof of it's existance before that date. Thats more of a factual clarification rather than OR, thats a universally accepted piece of information just like "Paris is the capital of France" given what the general public knows right now. That said, Procedural Keep per @MPJ-DK:: A majority of the article is well sourced, overriding the OR argument,and well sourced information necessary for an article has been removed by the AFD nominator, and while I am assuming good faith from the nominator, which is you, HHH Pedrigree, such a move is risky because it creates a possible conflict of interest (not necessarily the one in Wikipedia policy terms since that covers people editing subjects relating to them personally, this usage is moreso by nominating an article that you removed passable sourced info from for deletion) and WP:GAMING when it comes to nominating for deletion: Removing passable content from the article before nominating for deletion so that the result can go in his favor. I don't think you did that in bad faith, but it was a little underhanded. Just be careful okay? :) DrewieStewie (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm gonna explain my actions. First, my personal point of view, this is an article written from a fan perspective. The titles are one thing WWE created for some jobbers, like the Mexican Heavyweight title for El Gran Luchadore. I deleted info that, if the article isn't deleted, I think it's a lot of synth and, pure bullshit.
      - "The introduction of the until then obscure title seemed to be favorably received by the fans in attendance, chanting "YOLO" to show their approval." The title isnt' obscure, since it was created by WWE the same day. Second, also, source doesn't mention public approved the titles.
      - The reception was in stark contrast to the reception of the last championship introduced by WWE, the WWE 24/7 Championship that was loudly booed when introduced on May 20, 2019.[12][13][14] It also put the description of the WWE 24/7 Championship as the "the ugliest championship ever created" by wrestlers such as Edge, in question.[7][15] At least one commentator, Byron Saxton, could not believe what he saw, stating that "those cannot be real".[" I don't understand by the writer introduces the 24/7 reception here, not the Edge quote. To me, it's just SYNTH and introduces a lot of reliable sources without relationship with the article.
      - The debut of the championship also received international coverage upon it's WWE debut. Fake. Superluchas, as every week, reports Raw and Smackdown, just like Solowrestling in Spain. The titles didn't received international coverage, the show received international coverage. It's like creating articles for AJ Kirsh and Dave Dutra saying "their WWE debuts received international coverage".
      - The Yolo Country Tag Team Championship title change helped make SmackDown Live the top rated show on cable in the timeslot" Huge b****t. The source 18 doesn't ever mention the Yolo titles, and of course, doesn't say the yolo title change was a keypoint for numbers. 18= "Smackdown Live ratings for June 11, 2019 are now in. This week’s episode from Sacramento drew an average of 1.930 million viewers on Tuesday night according to a report by Showbuzzdaily.com. This is down from last week’s show that averaged 2.016 million viewers. Smackdown came in at No. 1 for the night on cable in the 18-49 demographics, which is where they placed last week. Demographic Ratings for Smackdown Live. Smackdown Live, headlined by Big E’s return to action, averaged a 0.60 rating among adults 18-49. This is the same rating they had last week."
      - For me, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don't care if the title is a joke, the DDT Ironheavymetal weight is a joke. The 24/7 is a joke. But are notable. This article was covered just becuse appeared on a tv show WP:INHERITED, doens't have coverage by itself. I don't know if it's a long term gag, like 24/7, but it's WP:TOOSOON. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My responses from the same message posted on my talk page below in top down order. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        you ASSUME they are from Yolo, do you have a source for that? Sounds like an OR argument to me.
        
        Why is it introduced? Context my dear HHH. Is it not totally acceptable to compare the reception of "X-Men Dark Phoenix" to previous X-Men movies? I think that's legit and happens all over Wikipedia, why can one championship introduction be compared to the previous one to provide some context for anyone not familiar with the subject? Seems like it's Wikipedia's duty to educate, just trying to do my part. In addition "I don't understand" is not a good argument to remove content, I'd have to blank out a ton of articles I do not understand.
        
        The Yolo Championship change was reported on by foreign sources, ergo it "received international coverage" - stated, sourced, FACT.
        
        The show was the top rated show in the timeslot, the Yolo championship was part of the show. Nowhere does it state a "keypoint" so pleases keep your own interpretations out of this please.
        
        No one (but you) have stated "the Yolo titles are huge deal", so that's not an argument that actually holds water. If you want to make an article on a jobber I am not stopping you, I am however stopping you from erroneously trying to undermine this article. Considering you nominated it and then tried to gut it of content it's hard to assuming good faith if your edits.
        
        So ratings had been dropping, but kept even with the previous week's ratings so that's better than them keep dropping, the angle was one of the differences compared to the previous weeks. And the show was indeed the top rated show. So I think "Huge lie" is your personal interpretation of this.

- - - - In the interest of any future AFD closer you should know that HHH Pedrigree is engaged in an edit war on this article by consantly removing well sourced material from the article. I could assume good faith initially, but 2 quick reverts just now is nothing more than distruptive editing, not sure if he's trying to make his AFD case stronger or what, but it's not really a good look. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I removed a section which is a huge interpretation of sources and, at some points' it's a lie. All my edits are explained here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        And I disagree with your interpretation of the edits, so I guess we're at a stalemate here, but since I won't edit war the sections are removed and no one here can read them for themselves and see if it helps them make up their minds for or against Deletion. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh and I apologize if I am getting a little passionate, just a big fan and I think this article has the potential for a Good Article and over time probably a Featured Article (and Featured List of we get List of WWE Yolo County Tag Team Champions). I try to have a discussion based on policy not my fandom, I apologize if I get carried away at times, not my intention. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) (Card Carrying member of The "No Drama" Professional Wrestling Society (NDPWS))[reply]

Weak keep I honestly think it passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for several reasons. WP:TOOSOON. Some things are uncitable, which leads to assumptions being made on its existence prior to Tuesday night (June 11, 2019). There was no announcement that these are now in fact WWE titles. It was said that they belonged to Yolo County Wrestling, and based on a quick Google search, that doesn't exist. Granted, in the past (like the 60s and 70s), WWE have claimed fictitious things when debuting titles (like Buddy Rogers winning a tournament that never actually happened), but back then, the internet wasn't really a thing, so kayfabe was much easier to get away with. The belts are made of cardboard, which is the biggest giveaway that this is a joke and not something that will last. MPJ-DK is a bit passionate on keeping this article, and I think that is largely due to him being the one who basically made the article, and I can understand that. This may pass GNG, but we also need to use common sense when deciding if an article should actually be made, regardless if it passes GNG. --JDC808 ♫ 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points below in the interest of enlightenment. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says the history is unknown, which you agree with.

No announcement, but the WWE did do a "championship photo shoot" afterwards and posted it on WWE.com, I would no be opposed to moving it to Yolo County Tag Team Championship, I just went with what the article originator called it, I'm cool.

Article does not mention "Yolo County Wrestling" (any more)

Provide a source that confirms that this is a joke please.

Yes, I agree that it is unknown, which makes anything prior uncitable, so that then leaves us with OR to assume the jobber team were the inaugural champions and their reign length is only a day. If this were a "legitimate" title in professional wrestling terms, that would be one thing, but as of right now, this is not (no official title history exists).

WWE does lots of photoshoots (see quoted bit from fifth source provided below).

This is of course kayfabe, but shouldn't that still be mentioned?

No source from WWE is gonna right out call it a joke, not at this moment anyways (although Byron Saxton basically did during the broadcast), but none will call it an official championship either. Here are some other sources, however, that basically do:

--JDC808 ♫ 06:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those quotes say that the championship is a joke, to SYNTH from the last one that "you’re not in WWE then you’re a joke" is an egrerious piece of Original Research. Oh and ringsidenews.com is not a reliable source either, so double whammy there. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for sources that called it a joke. These are basically doing just that. "worth a laugh", "homemade belts', "jobbers wearing cardboard belts", "humorously", (in reference to unifying the belts), "spoofing WWE's traditional photoshoots", and the last is in reference to the so-called "inaugural" champions, and in turn this championship (essentially saying that WWE thinks anything outside of them is a joke). A source doesn't have to be an RS to recognize a joke, it would just be taken more seriously if it was an RS in this case (and ringsidenews is not the only website that cited Meltzer's quote, just the one I happened to grab). --JDC808 ♫ 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, and you did not provide a single one tha actually say they are a joke. I did not ask for "quotes you can infer they are a joke" to do a bit of SYNTH. So still have not provided anything saying that it is a joke. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The English language has many different ways to say something without using the exact language that you are asking for, though Meltzer's quote does in fact use the word joke (in referencing things outside of WWE, which these titles were presented as). --JDC808 ♫ 23:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So yes the word "joke" is used for something outside of WWE pre-dating this - a comment which you then WP:SYNTH to also apply to something that was not mentioned or even thought of at the time. So you have yet to present an actual source that says it is a joke to back up your claim despite several tries. Not saying you should give up, but you've had several swings and misses on this, maybe you need to walk away from an argument you are not able to make? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't predate it. This championship is part of that same quote. You can attempt to say these don't back my claim, but that's something for the admins, or someone not passionate about this, to decide. --JDC808 ♫ 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I am wrong, I am wrong - your piece of SYNTH is not based on a quote that predates the creation, sorry about the mistaken on dating the source you Synthezised into "this is a joke". MPJ-DK (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of cooperation I will conseed that if you made the argument that that this championship is "speculated" to be part of a ‘it’s WWE or it doesn’t count you’re not in wrestling.' argument that would not have been a SYNTH argument. Does a speculation by an unreliable source belong in the artilce? Is speculation by someone outside WWE an argument for deletion? I leave that for others to judge. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - regardless if it's a "joke", that means nothing. Is it notable. I think so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its notable and well sourced.--TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't know~~ It feels WP:TOOSOON but the article is well written. I would suggest merging somewhere but there is nowhere to merge; the first champions don't have articles and the current champions only have separate articles. The sourcing is entirely WP:ROUTINE match results. If these disappear after a few episodes of SmackDown then we'll at least need to delete them at that point.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm deciding on ~~Move to draft~~. A lot of work has been put into this article and it would be a shame to delete it right now and then have to start from scratch if WWE keeps this going. It's just WP:TOOSOON to assume they will do that and WWE has a tendency to drop storylines without notice. Let's see where this stands in a month or two.LM2000 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going with a hard Delete now that it's more clear this was a one-week gag. Obviously someone can keep this in their sandbox in case it makes another appearance but right now it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure how gimmick championships are done on here (i.e. the Internet Championship) but I don't see the belt lasting long. Plus the article is pretty poorly written. Also do they qualify as a legit accomplishment on the respective superstar's articles? Solitude6nv5 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, and this isn't even really a gimmick championship. The Million Dollar Championship is one that has a lot of notability and wasn't just a one time thing. This on the other hand is purely just for this one storyline. This title is currently listed on the "current" champions respective articles, though it really shouldn't be (their profiles on WWE.com do not list this as an accomplishment, last I checked at least). --JDC808 ♫ 12:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL and as an argument for deletion is invalid. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all who oppose because WWE did not announce them as champions - WWE Twitter EXCLUSIVE: Say hello to your NEW Yolo County #TagTeamChampions... #HeavyMachinery! @otiswwe @tuckerwwe so it is indeed officially recognized by WWE. It was actually posted on June 11, 2019 - seems that the "it was never announced" people failed to do their proper WP:BEFORE work. /Sharing the knowledge. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that and like some other things WWE have said on Twitter, it's not an official WWE championship, nor is it officially recognized because WWE have already dropped this part of the storyline. Where were these supposed championships tonight? According to the commentators, Stomping Grounds will be Heavy Machinery's first title opportunity since joining SmackDown, essentially rendering the Yolo titles obsolete. I didn't get to see tonight's match live, but the video of the match posted to WWE's YouTube channel makes no mention of these titles (this same video has the commentator's remark). Then there's this post-match interview, and again, no mention of the Yolo titles as if they never existed. --JDC808 ♫ 04:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The titles are recognized by WWE. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not. --JDC808 ♫ 04:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON creation that seems to have not had any significance. All sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the show, making any claims to notability purely WP:INHERITED, and much of the article engages in SYNTH. A one-week gag does not deserve an article. oknazevad (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one-show joke which has already been forgotten about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the show, an item that lasted one episode does not deserve a Wikipedia article. StaticVapor message me! 19:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This result may either be a no consensus, procedural keep, or move to draft result based in what was given. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats up to the closing Admin to decide. But in my opinion the argument of all the sources being WP:ROUTINE for a an event without WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, its a clear delete. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:02, 19 June 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. Based on the discussion, it seems like most people here do not consider the offered sources to be evidence of notability. And "others can be found" is unfortunately a little too vague to make an effective counter-claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Rockwood[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails relevant notability guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article subject seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR; the vast majority of the sources cited by the article are WP:PRIMARY (traceable to the subject's own books, interviews, or companies he has found/is affiliated with), and none are particularly in-depth. A search for more sources turns up noting that would indicate the subject has a claim to encyclopedia significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article lacks sufficient non-primary sources yet these are present when one peruses around^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6] (found with a rapid search, more undoubtebly available). Being registered with Yoga Alliance additionally serves to enhance the credibility of Lucas Rockwood in the yoga world. Having taught several thousands of students^[7] speaks volume of his notability within individual's industry and Rockwood appears to have written yoga books, given a TEDx talk, and founded several yoga companies all suggesting and subsequently paving the way towards conjuring up the image of a well-known entrepreneur within the yoga world. Suggest keeping with a considerable improvement in sources (beyond those previously cited and already cited within article) and a modicum of edits to expand on individual's description and profile. Semitdark (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC) — Semitdark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

@Semitdark: None of these sources support notability. See WP:RS and WP:IV. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Others can be found. All of my points still stand nonetheless. Semitdark (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to follow the nominator's thinking; none of the sources listed above would meet WP:RS criteria, with the possible exception of the first one ([25]), which is an interview and thus WP:PRIMARY. Even if these sources were reliable ([26]) may work as well), the vast majority are profile pages on website, and most would not confer the ability to meet WP:SIGCOV on the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 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) 09:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LMPHP[edit]

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

not notable. ARASH PT talk 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Rabin.r and User:Parisa700 are sockpuppets of User:MrNewWritter and they are trying to create articles about Seyyed Ali Mohammadiye (author of LMPHP). They are blocked here and fawiki.-- ARASH PT talk 07:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to make it pass GNG and no indication of meeting WP:NSOFT--94rain ^Talk 07:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Sarminhamidi (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Barca (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable software Viztor (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any notability here --SebastianQuilo (talk) 15:05, 18 June 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) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Than Zaw Hein[edit]

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

Looking at this bio and is a case of WP:GNG with the reference going to a completely different person. HawkAussie (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wondered if the article creator had just mistakenly inserted the wrong link in his ref, but searching in Magwe FC for 2016 in the ref site provided did not bring up this player’s name. I’ve no idea what the creator was trying to do, but this article looks like nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:51, 13 June 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 Canon (fiction). Clear consensus for either merge or redirect; the arguments against merging (WP:OR and sourcing issues) have enough support by the commenters and policy/guideline to carry the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha (fiction)[edit]

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

Unreferenced since December 2009, seems to be an unnotable neologism. Though, it is a difficult term to search because of other usages of the term "apocrypha" that can overlap with fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canon (fiction) with which this term is supposed to contrast. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction) without merge. That article is already tagged as being under-referenced and possibly containing original research, so I don't see any value in merging in still more completely unsourced information that may constitute more original research. The term clearly is used, though; I was quickly able to find two examples with a few minutes of searching [27][28]. However, it's only ever used in contrast with the concept of canon, so should be discussed in the same article to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK problems. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction), per Lowercaserho. The article is an unnecessary fork of the that article and, as there is nothing here that is based on sourced information, there is nothing that should be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to canon (fiction), per above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 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 Archduke Géza of Austria#Marriage and children per the below discussion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lei von Habsburg-Lothringen[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale, "One of two black women to marry into the House of Habsburg-Lorraine." However, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archduke_Géza_of_Austria#Marriage_and_children where she gets a mention in her father-in-law's article (and add the sources to that article, and delink her there). PamD 08:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD. The subject's claim to notability is based on her marriage into a royal (albeit no longer reigning) house. Yet her husband is not himself notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, or at least he doesn't currently have one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge briefly). She just appears to be a NN lawyer, which the unusual distinction of having married into the family of an imperial pretender. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 16 June 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. Tone 11:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AsapScience[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:N or WP:RS, the sources are not notable or independent of the subject, and there is no evidence that this channel has any notability at all. WikiSmartLife (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick look at GNews shows the presence of continued, WP:SUSTAINED coverage, a lot of which is also SIGNIFICANT. Meets WP:GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- QEDK, making a "quick look" in a news browser does not prove notability. The article lacks reliable sources independent of the subject, and even if it is sustained, the subject of this article is not widely known and is usually only looked at by its fans. AsapScience has nothing special to distinguish it from other channels, and it is not as widely known as others such as Vsauce. WikiSmartLife (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WikiSmartLife: Did you purposely ignore the point I was trying to make by arguing a straw man? I said that even a quick look at GNews would show you that the channel has a decent amount of coverage from reliable, third-party sources which meet SUSTAINED and a decent amount which also meets SIGNIFICANT coverage guidelines. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - QEDK AsapScience is a channel that is a bit notable, of course, but not enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. There is coverage in browsers, but there are no mentions in sites independent of the subject. The channel is known, but only individually. It is not an important channel. Please double-check the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It has a lot of coverage, but this doesn't indicate that it is notable. WikiSmartLife (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @WikiSmartLife: I don't get what you're talking about. And what does There is coverage in browsers, but there are no mentions in sites independent of the subject. mean? There is significant coverage in The Daily Dot (RS), a passing mention in Inc42 (RS) about their huge number of subs, another sigcov-meeting article on Polygon (RS), and there's more too. So I do not understand what you say when you say that there are no mentions of the channel on independent sites, as these sources are both reliable and independent. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, the article could be referenced better to reduce use of primary sources, but there is sufficient notability demonstrated here. The CBC and PinkNews articles from 2014 are good coverage from notable and independent sources (contrary to what is claimed in the nomination). They have published a book in 2015, with a mainstream publisher, under the channel's name. That is a sustained period of notability. They don't get as much coverage as they used to, which is hardly surprising given that making videos week in and week out is less newsworthy than the initial splash they made, but they are still getting regular low level coverage, as can be seen if you restrict the Google search to just the past year. The article is at least as good as it was almost 5 years ago. I can't see a reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DanielRigal: Low level coverage is not enough. AsapScience is not notable. It is really as simple as that. They have not got attention of many people, and they might have significant coverage, but they are only known to their fans and are not important enough to have an article. WikiSmartLife (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned low level regular coverage in the last year but also much more significant coverage in the past so, obviously, I was not claiming that low level coverage was enough. Notability is not temporary. We do not require that every single video that they make gets a write up in the press to demonstrate notability on an ongoing basis any more than we consider deleting the article on, say, Kaiser William II even though he isn't getting as much press coverage as he used to. The best of the sources we have are significant and reliable. I really don't see why you think that there is a deletion case here, and I say that as someone who considers themselves a "deletionist". Maybe you can explain why you think that the "the sources are not notable or independent of the subject"? I know that there is an over-reliance on primary sources for verification but we should be judging by the best of the independent sources available when we consider notability. The CBC and PinkNews references seem unimpeachable to me. CBC is the national broadcaster of Canada and PinkNews is a UK based publication showing an international interest in this Canadian channel. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources currently used in the article (presented by QEDK and DanielRigal) look pretty reliable, and the fact that AsapScience has garnered coverage in a multitude of news publications (from different countries, and which are not fanbases) is indicative of notability. The article could surely be improved to use fewer WP:SPS, and there indeed exist several more reliable sources that have more than trivial mentions. For example, there is a very descriptive interview (in a third-party publication), recognition from Studio71 (a prominent media company), and evidence of their influence online. The continuous publication of such sources fulfills WP:SUSTAINED and the information given (beyond strict metrics and video content) passes WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 22:44, 17 June 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 Weequahic, Newark. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

440 Elizabeth Avenue[edit]

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

An apartment that does not meet WP:NBUILD guidelines. The building is not historical or has architectural importance. Article is mostly sourced to emporis.com which appears to be a WP:SPS database similar to wikipedia. Removing that as a source, all that is left are a few local newspaper articles that appear to be human-interest stories. Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect to Weequahic, Newark, for which this is this is a reasonably substantial building. bd2412 T 03:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Weequahic, Newark. Djflem (talk) 04:41, 14 June 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. Tone 11:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honey G (rapper)[edit]

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

Pretty certain that this artist is not noteworthy enough to warrant an article. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they have any truly noteworthy work. SecretName101 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NMUSIC. Has had a peaking song on the national main music chart. Has participated in a nationally syndicated TV singing competition and placed high. Also per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I disagree that she has had a song placed on the national main music chart – the publicly-released official UK Singles Chart only has 100 places. Nos. 101 to 200 are not available to the general public, either at the Official Chart Company's website or in the trade magazine Music Week... the only way to find these positions is to be a music industry insider and subscribe to UK Charts Plus. But as these are not publicly-released positions, I don't believe they meet the criteria of the main singles chart. I don't think one single at no. 149 is a particularly strong claim to notability anyway (perhaps only in the sense that she got so much coverage for how badly it performed), and I would concentrate on other sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only follow the guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I try to take as little interest as possible in this sort of thing, but I note the article's sources include the Daily Mail (one of *those* "how dare people with a certain level of education not listen to Elgar or at least Queen" pieces, as well) and the Sun twice over, so not the best sourcing to say the least. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Whilst the article isn't very well written, Honey G has received quite large coverage in the media and finished high in a highly watched television series. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst she is not notable as a musician, she is notable as a well known public figure/reality tv participant in the UK due to her time on The X Factor. There are certainly other 'celebrities' from other reality television shows with pages that are less notable than this person.FilthyDon (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable tv contestant from a national/international television series. Even I have heard of her. An ambitious editor can make hey out of this thing and rehabilitate the sourcing. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:43, 16 June 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. While it is correct to say that under the notability guideline "once notable" usually means "always notable", the consensus here appears to be that there is no evidence of notability either past or present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Roads and Cyclists Association[edit]

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

Last update to web site was in 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20091030054219/http://www.mynrca.com.au/ . In 2015 domain nrca.com.au switches to The National Risk Consultants Association ownership. NRCA orginisation hasn't existed for 10 years from what I can see. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably defunct, but once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only does the group appear to be defunct, it does not appear to have ever been notable even when it was active. The sources being used in the article are actually just copies of the exact same article that was posted on several different sites, and the coverage was not even about the organization in any way. The only mention of the group in the article is that it contains a brief quote from the group's president. I could find no coverage of the group in reliable sources at all, and the most I could find outside what was already in the article were a couple mentions on personal blogs or forum posts. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to have been a letterbox association. The saying "once notable, always notable" doesn't exactly work if the association was never notable. All the footnotes say is that the president of the association was once quoted in the media. That's nowhere near enough. We need significant coverage of the association, not occasional quotes of its officers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can provide a bit of background. NRCA was a parody or NRMA, the National Road Motorists Association in NSW. It's president was Alan Evans, so NRCA had Alan Odds, not a real person. They put out some great press releases that were even picked up by some media as being from a real organisation. It was clever lobbying, but I doubt anyone involved would expect a Wiki page to exist 11 years after it had all ended. [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 June 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) 03:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House That Had Enough[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No claims of notability. No reliable secondary sources. No references. Rogermx (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Geoffroi (talk) 00:21, 18 June 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. While it is correct to say that under the notability guideline "once notable" usually means "always notable", the consensus here appears to be that there is no evidence of notability either past or present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Roads and Cyclists Association[edit]

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

Last update to web site was in 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20091030054219/http://www.mynrca.com.au/ . In 2015 domain nrca.com.au switches to The National Risk Consultants Association ownership. NRCA orginisation hasn't existed for 10 years from what I can see. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably defunct, but once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only does the group appear to be defunct, it does not appear to have ever been notable even when it was active. The sources being used in the article are actually just copies of the exact same article that was posted on several different sites, and the coverage was not even about the organization in any way. The only mention of the group in the article is that it contains a brief quote from the group's president. I could find no coverage of the group in reliable sources at all, and the most I could find outside what was already in the article were a couple mentions on personal blogs or forum posts. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to have been a letterbox association. The saying "once notable, always notable" doesn't exactly work if the association was never notable. All the footnotes say is that the president of the association was once quoted in the media. That's nowhere near enough. We need significant coverage of the association, not occasional quotes of its officers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can provide a bit of background. NRCA was a parody or NRMA, the National Road Motorists Association in NSW. It's president was Alan Evans, so NRCA had Alan Odds, not a real person. They put out some great press releases that were even picked up by some media as being from a real organisation. It was clever lobbying, but I doubt anyone involved would expect a Wiki page to exist 11 years after it had all ended. [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 June 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) 03:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bixler[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for no sources since 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet any notability guidelines. Sasquatch t|c 19:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence this person meets any of the needed to be included in the encyclopedia at this time. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:03, 16 June 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Gene Blevins[edit]

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

Unclear notability. He has a lot of acting credits from films and television, but none of them are major roles. Not sure if his breadth of work makes him notable. Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added references to article-- seems to pass GNG as a character actor, though he has few major roles.Gilded Snail (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is a working actor with real credits. Good RS coverage on Variety [31], Hollywood.com [32], deadline [33] and filmstage [34]. Actor passes GNG. HM Wilburt (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article does need a rewrite for BLP. HM Wilburt (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he does have some prominent roles such as Joe (2013 film) and American Cowslip which he also wrote, the article has been improved with additional references, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 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 Latin phrases (V). Consensus is that there is not enough material to make this phrase notable/worthy of its own article. A split of the target article can be discussed there if so desired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores[edit]

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

The phrase in itself is not notable, fails WP:N at that. Additionally, all of the content on this page has been merged into the general List of Latin phrases (V). The phrase as a whole is an unlikely search term, so a redirect probably isn't valid either, yet a debate could potentially be made on the subject of redirecting. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article gives no indication that this phrase is notable for being used outside its original Latin source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ ~~per Not Neologism~~ ATD per Mccapra ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Latin phrases (V). If it’s from Suetonius I don’t think it counts as a neologism. I would have agreed with the rationale for deletion without redirect except that a google search shows a surprisingly large number of cases of this motto being used, including being printed on t shirts, so I think there is a good chance of it being used as a search term. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the content has been merged, as the nomination states, then it should not be deleted – see WP:MAD. List of Latin phrases (V) is a more unlikely search term for a reader wanting information about this classical proverb and the would-be editor will be baffled by the complex structure of that list. Cramming such topics into a list has resulted in bloat so that even the letter V alone is now greater than 30K, contrary to WP:SIZE. Readers now use devices such as smart phones and voice assistants to access our information and a bloated list would be unworkable for this purpose. It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so we should take advantage of this freedom to give each such proverb its own distinct page. Andrew D. (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't merged word-for-word. See the article and the List of Latin phrases (V); it has been condensed to the origin of the phase. Also, the idea that "there is no limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover", while true, doesn't mean that we cover topics that can't be proven for notability. It is just a phrase that would be better suited for Wiktionary. Utopes (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of Latin phrases (V). The phrase, while certainly existing, does not have sources discussing it in any way outside of translations. It does not pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article, but as mentioned by Mccapra, is common enough that it would certainly be a valid search term. As the entirety of the information in the article is already present in the target list, anything beyond a simple Redirect is unnecessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient notability and content to warrant an article separate from the list. Reywas92^Talk 22:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Latin phrases (V). Phrase is not notable enough to warrant its own article. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 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) 03:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Skatepark[edit]

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

This page has no citations. In addition, the skatepark is permanently closed, according to Google Maps. Bridges2Information (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourceless for damn-near 10 years. Trillfendi (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article looks like its original purpose may have been to drive traffic to an online shop. I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to find significant coverage and it was obviously created for promotional purposes. (The username of the creator is Progressiveskate that violates the policy and should have been blocked years ago but stale for now) --94rain ^Talk 14:22, 13 June 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.

[1] "Facebook's Sandberg calls on women to be aggressive leaders". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2019-06-05.

[gh-2] "The Untold History of Women in Science and Technology". The White House. Retrieved 2019-06-05.

[3] "Wikipedia:Statistics", Wikipedia, 2019-05-06, retrieved 2019-06-06

[4] Writers, Staff (2019-06-14). "Women in Computer Science". ComputerScience.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[5] "Women in Computer Science: 6 Assumptions to Avoid | Rasmussen College". www.rasmussen.edu. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[6] "Current trends for women graduating with computer science degrees troubling". Progressive Policy Institute. 2018-08-07. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[7] "Cracking the code: Why aren't more women majoring in computer science?". UCLA. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[8] "When computer programming was 'women's work'". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[9] Quesenberry, Carol Frieze, Jeria L. "How Computer Science at CMU Is Attracting and Retaining Women". cacm.acm.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[10] Algar, Selim (2019-03-25). "Girls are acing the AP computer science test in record numbers: DOE". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-06-18.

[11] ttps://www.barcelona-metropolitan.com/features/interview-lucas-rockwood-yogabody-fitness/

[12] ttp://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/index.php?p=web/author/LucasRockwood

[13] ttps://www.yogaalliance.org/teacherpublicprofile?tid=26657

[14] ttps://www.yogaallianceprofessionals.org/uploads/curriculum-vitae/lucas-rockwood-30503.pdf

[15] ttps://www.creditsuite.com/lucas-rockwood/

[16] ttps://corewalking.com/be-your-own-healer-lucas-rockwood/

[17] ttps://issuu.com/caroladams/docs/namaskar_june_2011

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]