Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 May	18 May >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of socksifiers[edit]

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

Irrelevant and unencyclopedic comparison with no real notability. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_proxifiers. Not sure what the appropriate category this nomination is, leaving it set to Unknown creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socksifiers (a.k.a. proxifiers) are useful software products that, I believe, deserve this article in Wikipedia. They are used not only by home users but also by governments, universities, banks and companies of all sizes. They are notable as the type of software products. I created this article and added only popular software titles - everyone is welcome to check by themselves at Google. Comparison of socksifiers is not less relevant than, for example, Comparison of SSH clients. Socksifiers are mentioned in the technical literature (Zwicky, Elizabeth D.; Cooper, Simon; Chapman, D. Brent (2000). Building Internet Firewalls (2nd ed.). p. 235. ISBN 978-1-56592-871-8.) and, as such, are of course encyclopedic. mr565 (talk)
delete: per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
What a "nice" logic: If I need a SSH client then it's relevant and encyclopedic; if I don't need a socksifier then it's not. Think a moment about users who must use proxy to access the internet: because of their company's security policies, a secrecy regime, censorship, etc. These users want (and often have) to use different types of network clients, not all of which support proxy. For many of them a socksifier is as necessary as other more commonly used types of software. mr565 (talk)
- Nobody said that the SSH client comparison was encyclopedic (you're the only one who has mentioned it), and to be honest I'd probably support removal of that too. Also, do you have any relationship to any of the products listed on this page (particularly ProxyCap)? creffett (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Wikipedia is not a list of links. Vectro (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomCatorce2016 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,The article does not meet notability and has weak RS. Alex-h (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable list entries. WP:NOTGUIDE and various other degrees of WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are curious who I am - I'm a sysadmin with many years of experience and an internet freedom activist. mr565 (talk)

Machines need juice and generally a CR2032. Wikipedia articles need WP:RS and WP:THREE and good arguments . Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 24 May 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 Soot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon buildup[edit]

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

Sheer unbased OR. A posting at WP:ANI suggests that this account has been compromised by a vandal.

As to the content here, then carbon buildup is a significant issue for petrol engines. It's also a separate problem for diesel engines, leading to sticking rings. However the (unsourced, naturally) claim here is about diesel engines and black exhaust smoke. Yet diesel exhaust smoke is almost entirely an issue of the injection pumps (esp. Fords) and the injectors and _not_ a problem caused by "carbon buildup". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article, as written, defines the subject far too narrowly - carbon buildup could refer to a build-up of carbon in anything, from a coal plant to a pencil factory. This stub focusses solely on internal combustion diesel engines, and with only two sentences it's scarcely more than an incomplete dictionary definition. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking delete vote, see comment below)

Comment This is a weird AfD. The nominator is the one who (falsely) suspects my account was compromised and posted the accusation to ANI. The suspicion is solely based on the fact that I recently nominated a couple of copyright violations for speedy deletion (all by the same user) and AfD'd a couple others that seemed excessively detailed violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It looks like the deletions angered the nominator [1]. I don't really care about Carbon buildup, but it was an attempt to salvage a topic that the other voters in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diesel_engine_problems said was probably notable. It's a two sentence stub. I personally don't care about it, but this whole thing feels weird. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as the article author, I don't care if this is deleted. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Are you sure? If so Speedy Delete G7 may apply. You are the only editor who made substantial contributions to this article.--94rain ^Talk 03:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Let me think about that. I don't think this AfD has the right motives, but I get the feeling that the best thing might be to end whatever happened here as quickly as possible. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge I think the merge proposal below is a good one. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into soot which is a better article on the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge You're right - merging the content/sources into another article would be better than deleting entirely. Soot would work, or alternatively Diesel engine? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge to the diesel engine would not help the fouled spark plugs on the petrol engine.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into soot per AD. I'd note maybe Carbon deposit might have been an alternative name, but maybe not.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the better option.Catorce2016 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't think merging this particular content is that important, but the focus on this subject shouldn't be trying to create new articles like the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diesel_engine_problems, but flesh out the content within existing articles already. Diesel_engine#Operating_principle seems like it might be a place to flesh out what causes deterioration, etc. related to this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives of the Hull and Barnsley Railway[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of excessively detailed information about the assets of a company that appears to have been defunct for over 100 years. GretLomborg (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. (Personal attack removed) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hull and Barnsley Railway or, if that is felt as taking over too much space in the article, leave as is. Apposite information, well sourced; the fact that the company is defunct seems quite beside the point... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic passes WP:LISTN and its age is irrelevant per WP:ITSOOLD. See also WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Elmidae has offered, but if not done then keep. Once notable always notable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article as it was hived off from the Hull and Barnsley Railway a couple of years ago. We do not want to loose the information so a merge back would be an acceptable alternative. Keith D (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep accepted sort of wp article, sufficiently long to be separate.WP covers transport extensively. That the railroad is defunct is irrelevant. WP covers the present and the past, like any encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keith D and DGG. This list is of reasonable length. RobDuch (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The level of detail in this article strikes me as similar to that in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Java_EE_version_history, for instance. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One is an extant mainspace article and the other is a deletion discussion. If you mean Java EE version history can we have a temp undelete? for us non admins? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that this article collates dispersed information that is difficult to find, whereas the Java history was in essence a copy of a version history file readily available on the net. Quite different use cases IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae You've sort of blown your credibility by confusing Java and Java EE in your answer... and lends weight to the usefulness of the former for numbskulls like me.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I don't give a fig for the difference between Java and Java EE, nor does it have any bearing on suitability as an article whatsoever... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mix them up its a problem. Bit like a horse and cart really. Likely to cause you trouble if you mix them up. Talking of mix ups that applies to the rending of the Hull and Barnsley Railway which seems to have acquired white hold syndrome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, article reflects this with references included from a number of books. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 19 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of excessively detailed information about the assets of a company that appears to have been defunct for over 150 years. GretLomborg (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block with extreme prejudice Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic passes WP:LISTN and its age is irrelevant per WP:ITSOOLD. See also WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pointless resisting deletionist.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, completely meritless nomination. This content is standard coverage for historic railways and readily supported here by sources, regardless of whether the nominator is personally interested in this level of detail. postdlf (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the S&D was the world's first commercial railway to use locomotives instead of horses. Several of the locomotives listed were crucial in the early development of steam locomotives. RobDuch (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The level of detail in this article strikes me as similar to that in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Java_EE_version_history, for instance. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One is an extant mainspace article and the other is a deletion discussion. If you mean Java EE version history can we have a temp undelete? for us non admins? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the relevance, really a very poor example of WP:WAX. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, article reflects this with references included from a number of books. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 19 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Circular millimetre[edit]

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

Another probably-nonexistent unit of measure in the highly dubious Cardarelli book. I can find no mentions of this except for Cardarelli, plus Wikipedia and its mirrors. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books and Scholar do show a few other hits. But indeed they are few, and I wonder if there isn't a potential misspelling here. Can you tell us why Cardarelli source is "highly dubious"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is known to be full of sloppy errors. For instance, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salmarazd, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stupping_ton, and the excellent detective work done by @Imaginatorium:, here. In short, it is complete junk from beginning to end and shouldn't be used as a source for any Wikipedia article, let alone the sole source. Reyk _YO! 11:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cardarelli is recommended by NIST here and there are numerous reviews in respectable journals which are generally complimentary. Those are reliable sources. The nomination is not. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there are complimentary reviews, but none of them look carefully at "Chapter 3", the indiscriminately collected assemblage of truths, half-truths, and outright nonsense about historical units. You have never answered my question: should we add Cardarelli's collection of fictional Japanese units (not even actually pronounceable in Japanese!) to WP, on the grounds that it is WP:reliable? And can you explain what "The nomination is not" means? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a snide put-down. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have seen no evidence that such a unit exists, fails WP:GNG.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to millimetre page. I've seen evidence that it exists from various unit converters, but no evidence for independent notability. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 12:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cardarelli is a respectable authority on units and it is easy to find more sources which confirms this one – see Industrial Electricity, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That book quite clearly talks about the circular and square mil, not millimetre. Given that it also states a formula for the area of a circle that it is the square of its diameter, and proceeds from there, I wouldn't put much trust in it.
  Of course, what Wikipedia should have is articles on circular measure and a gauging rule, two missing things that I discovered whilst looking for other sources that could at least get the formula for the area of a circle right.
  Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, that actually is the definition of the Circular mil. It glosses over a conversion factor of 4/pi. Still, this is a passing mention at best and more likely a red herring. Reyk _YO! 17:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)(reply to Uncle G) The book starts by explaining the circular mil and then goes on to cover the metric equivalent, "The circular mil (English units) of a conductor may be changed to circular millimeters (metric units, abbreviated c mm) by this formula ...". Q.E.D. Uncle G's other points seem more sensible as I don't doubt that there's much more to be said about these topics. We should develop the topic, not delete it per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Area actually is the square of diameter when expressed in circular units. That's the whole point of the unit. It is definitely not an error. SpinningSpark 13:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source in the article (a) is dubiously trustworthy and (b) calls the unit obsolete anyway. Other instances in GS/GBooks are nineteenth-century tables, or just false positives ("a circular, millimetre-sized..."). This could maybe merit a mention, but not a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obsolete" is a completely invalid deletion rationale. The empire of Genghis Khan is obsolete. So is the Republic of Texas. It is a major part of Wikipedia's mission to document historical things and events. Your first argument also fails as there are many other sources besides Cardarelli. SpinningSpark 13:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's much more to be said about the Khanate or the Republic of Texas than there is about the circular millimetre. The former are valid article topics relevant for understanding history; the latter is a perma-stub. We would lose absolutely nothing if the circular millimetre had a sentence in another article (circular measure was mentioned as a possibility above). In fact, we'd probably gain in usefulness. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not necessarily against folding this into another article, but currently circular measure does not exist. We should keep what we have per WP:PRESERVE, there is no sense in deleting encyclopaedic information. SpinningSpark 22:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to millimetre page. I concur with John and others the sources are poor, and thee's doubtful anything else we can add to this sub-stub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a made-up term attempting to give "equal time" to metric units given that circular mil is a unit. There is a lot of stuff on the internet and no doubt Cardarelli is not the only person to have thought that circular millimetre sounded good, but there is no record of it being used as a unit. I downloaded the reference's sample chapter in December 2014. Reading the pdf shows it is totally unsuitable as a reliable source because it is merely a scraping of every claim on the internet added to lists of standard units such as inch/foot/yard and metric equivalents. The chapter uses tables to show conversions so when it came to circular mil, the author had to find something to convert it to. The table says 1,000,000 circular mils (cmil) is 1 circular inch (cin) and 645.16 circular millimetre (cmm). It gives the bolded terms as the unit symbols and says nothing more. I knew what a circular mil is long before Wikipedia existed—the claims about circular inch/millimetre, and the made-up symbols, are nonsense. Anyone supporting the reference needs to find a few cases where such units are used. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims that this unit is made up by Cardarelli and others in order to have a conversion target is demonstrably false. Iron and Steel: A Work for the Forge, Foundry, Factory & Office, published 1876, could not possibly be influenced by Cardarelli or Wikipedia. Nor could A Dictionary of Electrical Words, Terms and Phrases published in 1889. There are repeated references to the unit, particularly in books concerned with electrical wires 1904, 1961, 1999. If it's made up, it's been made up by a an awful lot of different people over the course of two centuries which in itself is kind of notable. And just to show that this is not something just found in conversion tables, here's a patent using that unit. SpinningSpark 13:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those are good finds. However, they only show old attempts to generate conversion tables with all possible combinations. I would like to see where someone has actually used a circular millimetre. The patent is interesting but it concerns feeding indigestible, rounded cubes to obese people to partially fill their stomachs, and describes a tablet providing certain compounds thought to be helpful. The patent says A "circular millimeter" is simply a diameter, in millimeters, squared. and uses the unit in relation to the amount of pressure applied to pack the compounds into the tablet. That is a unit of area, albeit with a confused definition, so it supports the existence of the topic. What about its notability? Do tiny by-the-way mentions justify inclusion per WP:GNG? Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said above that I would be happy to see this rolled into a more general article on circular measures per WP:PRESERVE, but at the moment, that page doesn't exist and this is all we have got. Deleting is a step backwards from achieving that. SpinningSpark 12:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references to the article and now we can keep it. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - the arguments that this is dubious or made up have been addressed to my satisfaction. If this could be expanded it should be kept but in its current state I have no issue with merging to millimetre. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging will not have a meaning as circular millimetre is circular measure for area and millimetre is a measure of length: those two are in two different dimensions (i.e. these two are not inter-related to merge. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it will. "A circular millimetre, the area of a circle with a diameter of 1 mm, is used in electrical engineering." can be used as a sentence in the millimeter. Maybe not as the article is currently written, but there's certainly room for a "related/derived units" section, especially if this isn't notable enough for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Circular Millimetre is not defined as SI derived unit. Here, we may be going to define Wikipedia only definition. Contrarily, Circular mil is a separate article and it is a part of imperial measurements; Circular Millimetre is needed to be a separate article in order to keep persistence within Wikipedia and further expansion can be done later. Shevonsilva (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simplest. Of course there is an article to be written (?) on the general concept of "circular" measure, as distinct from "square" measure, which would have explanatory force. One thing it would do is discuss where and when circular measure has been used in practice; I note that sentence 2 in the article has no citation (for "use for wires"), and I can't find any support among those of the references that I can read. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. There is a lack of understanding about the topic of measurement. Circular measure is not a distinct form from square measure and circular measure is only a sub-set of square measure; Circular mil is a separate article implying the need for an article for SI oriented unit of Circular millimeter.

"use for wire sizes" is mentioned in the first reference. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some discussions were conducted about Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures, I re-mention the reliability check carried out by National Institute of Standards and Technology: link: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Reference/faq.html Shevonsilva (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - circular millimeter is not listed as a unit of measure in the US Metric Association "Detailed list of metric system units, symbols, and prefixes" - once source cited in the article is from 1902 (WP:AGE MATTERS) (and the link provided is to volume 2 T-Z, and does not mention circular millimeters) - the measurement does not appear in the "EBMcalc Medical Calculator" list cited - so this is a non-standard unit of measure - it is not notable under WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Here, Wikipedia should include non-metric units too as wikipedia is not a part of metric association. Metric and SI have a slight variation too. There are a lot of non-standard units in which scales are varying, but, are used in certain areas (e.g. foot in different countries). Circular millimetre is appeared in EBMcalc Medical Calculator. Please check it carefully. Please refer the journal papers too, if you want to understand the coverage. I am really tired of explaining about units to the audience. Please try to move forward. Please try to understand overall ideas of particular subjects. I am trying my best to explain the things as I can and remove doubts. Thanks.

Hope the following article will find interesting for you: List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement. :) Shevonsilva (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Epinoia: (after edit conflict) That's all very sloppy. WP:AGE MATTERS is a ridiculous rationale to raise; this is a unit of measure, not some sort of discredited scientific investigation. Historical and obsolete units are no more or less notable than current units, and being "non-standard" does not prevent a unit a priori from being notable. The claim that there is no mention in volume 2 T-Z is false; it appears on page 537 under "Untis, circular". You make the same mistake on the EBMcalc page, probably because Americans think there is only one way to spell millimetre. You also fail to consider sources that are not currently in the article, as required by WP:BEFORE when assessing notability, such as the book Industrial Electricity noted by Andrew D further up the page (and read the second column on the linked page before telling me it is not there). SpinningSpark 10:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OK, aside from the question about whether this unit actually exists, I think we need more discussion on whether this topic is notable enough for an article. It's not entirely clear from the discussion so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnuniq and Imaginatorium's research, this is a conversion related to other units but not a unit in use itself. Circular_mil#Equivalence_to_other_units_of_area could mention the concept of circular measurement. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I really suspect non-scientific methodology here based on personnel assumptions on units. Approving NIST is unreliable also needs more scientific approach. I appreciate Imaginatorium's work as he/she placed a lot of effort as a Wikipedia contributor, but, his work is much more un-reliable as there is a lot of personnel opinions are still there in his work. Somehow his/her work is leading to improving the articles. Please read the full conversion. We have a separate article for Circular mil and we need Circular millimetre as a separate article as a data repository. We have 7 SI units and all other other SI units are derivations and we are not going to include only 7 SI unit and delete all other derivations. Please understand the matter in full before providing your valuable openions. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Wikipedia is not a "repository" where every concept ever mentioned automatically deserves its own article. I stand by my position or a merge/redirect. Your comparison to SI units makes no sense - they actually have enough content discussing them individually, whereas none of our data would be lost if we mention this related concept there. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. :) There is a lack of understanding here about the topic and Wikipedia. For your information, Grammerly, for example, uses Wikipedia as the default repository for queries. There are other tools which exhibit the same behavior. Removing articles here will lead to switch to a different information repository. What I mean about SI units is about the requirement for a unique article for this as it will be queried for an encyclopedic description (instead of having a mega article for a set of units and readers have to search separate sections and de-motivating the future expansion of information due to lack of importancy of it as if it is a sub content.)Shevonsilva (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad for Grammarly then, not our problem to adapt to their needs, not that they would flag the words "circular" or "millimetre" anyway. And I think most of the Wikipedia scrapers still follow redirects. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Please read the whole discussion. What you are suggesting is to write one article for all SI units, and, create re-directs for other units: encyclopedia is not a book with one chapter with indexes. According your logic, we have to delete Circular mil too as it is a clear derivation of mil, and, FYI we also have to clearly delete Square metre article too with your logic. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:17, 22 May 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stephen Award[edit]

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

I have looked for sources about this prize in German, French and English but have not been able to find anything to indicate that it has received substantial, independent coverage in multiple sources as requried to meet the general notability guideline. If the awarding organisation were notable, I'd suggest redirecting, but it does not appear to be either. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for this discussion. I created this page because it is a well-known award among historians specializing in Enlightenment and the 18th century. This is the only award to honour Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. I am a student and we have a poster of this award in the university library. Its internet coverage is indeed not very important but many English, German and French books and magazines speak about it. Vadius14 (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several history and literature reviews speak of this award (Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft, German history, European review). It is known in European academic circles. Jolkano (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do see the significance of the award and it being mentioned in links such as this and this. The article is not written as per WP:MoS but that can be takns care of. There are winners for it so is defintely notable. Brenthaven (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors arguing that this is notable need to provide evidence of that notability, such as reliable sources discussing this subject in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a bona fide award, with reliable refs, based on a Google search. Recipients appear legit as well. I cleaned up the article some. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the subject of the article is notable and can be improved. Alex-h (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable award, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW Lubbad85 (☎) 15:08, 24 May 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) 19:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Tessler[edit]

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

Delete This person does not meet the criteria for WP:ENT : Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (One notable film) 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (No cult following, as far as I'm aware) 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (No unique, prolific or innovative contributions that I could find).

Alex.osheter (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing no real evidence of genuine notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:ENT. No significant secondary RS coverage whatsoever. No notability established. • HM Wilburt (talk) 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. WP:GNG is lacking here. Catorce2016 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by an admin per G7. (non-admin closure)---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilli Waliye[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bilal Saeed. None of the references in the article give the song significant coverage, and I'm not seeing any other sources we could use. (Note that the author has been rapidly creating articles about individual songs in this genre, without providing suitable refs - I think they need a bit of guidance on notability, I'll drop a note on their talk page.)GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All seems good. Yes go for a redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bilal Saeed, as per Girth Summit. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:NSONG or WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't close this myself since I voted, but I note that the article has been speedy deleted (G7), so this discussion can be closed.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:49, 18 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fakir Hour[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian (WP:GNG). While it was produced at a notable film studio and involved some significant Soviet actors such as Lidiya Smirnova and Aleksandr Belyavsky (actor) playing main roles, it does not appear to be considered a significant part of their careers and thus does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:FILM.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 02:07, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale regarding Russian films sounds familiar. If the leading actors are indeed notable there should be Russian sources offline if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFO - not a notable film - Epinoia (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 17 May 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miz Cracker[edit]

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

Non-notable outside of being a contestant on a reality show. --wooden superman 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Also, nominating editor should know the page should be redirected, not deleted, if the subject is not independently notable. But I believe there's sufficient secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I'm a little concerned by this edit. I know it's not exactly WP:CANVASSING, but notifying a small group of fans of the show could certainly lead to WP:VOTESTACKING and skew the discussion. --wooden superman 13:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable. Period. Multiple TV appearances/web series, released music, almost 1 million Instagram followers. This afd is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong coverage of her including RS that are not primarily about RPDR, like the Jerusalem Post and Forward citations in thhe article. Rab V (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several pop culture references, the person is clearly notable. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources from before her time on Drag Race, if that helps. Notable writer on top of being a drag queen. Bouncehoper (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's coverage outside of her time on RPDR, including her writing (and winning the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's Excellence in Column Writing award), nomination of a People's Choice Awards, her webseries Review with a Jew and JewTorials, and participation in the song "Jappy". --Kbabej (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I contest this deletion on the grounds of the subject's extensive media experience (Allure, Cosmopolitan, Haaretz, People's Choice Award nomination)--NotALovelyLady (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miz Cracker is clearly notable outside the realm of RuPaul's Drag Race, as the article clearly demonstrates. Strong coverage in the article citing many reliable sources. I see no reason for this article to be deleted. Yompi20 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) per nom and failure to meet WP:NACTOR. While there are WP:RS, none of the good ones seem to treat the subject independently enough to establish notability for an independent article. Lots of them are trivial mentions. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The person passes 2/3 of the points in NACTOR, so she is notable. - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605
We'll have to disagree, then. Also are you User:Ratherbe2000, 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605? - GretLomborg (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:NotALovelyLady improperly removed the delete headers from the article [2], and has tried to mark this deletion discussion as itself deleted [3] [4]. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry User:GretLomborg. I read through the deletion policy, but I got very confused regarding the difference between deletion and speedy deletion. I thought that the lines "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page" meant that I could delete the header. NotALovelyLady (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the keep !votes don't address the issue of notability outside of the show. Fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They Literally do though. They mention her other writings and appearances, and she DOES pass NACTOR - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR which has clearly been established here in this discussion and in the article itself. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the "keep" !votes are WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE. More policy-based !votes are needed to close this as "keep" or even "no consensus", despite the numerical majority (WP:NOTAVOTE).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, NONE of the keep votes imply ILIKEIT or ITSNOTABLE, they describe why their notable just as much as the delete votes, even greater than actually. - 2600:6C5D:5880:38:493D:61A8:1FF0:E605
Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 19 May 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arnold[edit]

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

In light of the recent successful AfD for Pauline Barrett, I am nominating others who have received the same non-notability-establishing Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some confusion here about "non-notability-establishing". The award does not establish that someone is not notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An honorary degree is a notable achievement. The recognition that she received as the chief executive of a charity adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, Bournemouth University awarded 10 honorary degrees, some to notable people, but also others to some of questionable (Wikipedially speaking) qualifications.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Isn't this an argument about whether the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is notable? In which case, the discussion should be on the talk page of that article, shouldn't it?--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That question has been settled by the deletion of Pauline Barrett's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a clandestine conversation on another article's talk page counts as gaining consensus. I would argue that a national, government-backed award with substantial mentions in multiple sources, counts as a significant award.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "clandestine conversation"? It was a public AfD discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation about the notability of the Queen's Award for Enterprise belongs on Talk:Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, not hidden away on the talk page of Pauline Barrett. I assume you know what WP:ANYBIO says and that is why you're questioning the significance of the award but you cannot claim that that issue has been decided because the proper procedure hasn't been followed.--Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question about the notability of the award. It's whether the award confers automatic notability, and the decision by the AfD closer and lvoters was no, it doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the fact that that was precisely the question I first asked and press on. Does winning a significant award automatically confer notability on the recipient? No, but that coupled with general notability does.[[6]] So your reason for deleting is, fails WP:GNG?--Ykraps (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Of the current references, two are announcements of honors received (and in local newspapers), and the rest are not about her specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will repeat what I said in the Pauline Barrett AfD: I don't see why the award would not qualify for WP:ANYBIO - it's a national award, not a local one, and there were 10 recipients of that award each year, in a population of about 60 million overall. Assuming that about 3/4 of the population were aged 20+, the award was given to 10 in 45,000,000 people, or 2.22%, which is surely notable. Apart from that award, I will look for sources on this subject, and come back to !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award does indeed qualify for WP:ANYBIO but that is an additional criterion. Karen Arnold must first satisfy the basic criteria. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, there were enough sources to warrant keeping it but now I am struggling to find anything that doesn't just simply announce her as an award winner.--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability, only mindless promo and bad sourcing. Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO received a well-known and significant award or honor Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion only a handful of people receive the award. Subject is also the chief executive of a charity WP:GNG also received an honorary degree. Article is sourced. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone provide links to this "significant coverage" because all I can find are mere mentions that she won the award and so am currently erring on the side of delete.--Ykraps (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion where she is listed - no other notability - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - therefore, Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Besides being awarded a state award for business promotion, for what else exactly is the person notable? Because strictly on account of her being a businesswoman I fail to see how she qualifies. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, she isn't a businessman, she's someone who promotes entrepreneurship through education and/or mentoring. The award is not for business, but for "enterprise promotion": it is typically given to people who are half in business and half in academia or the charitable sector, or who run incubators of one sort or another. Sometimes these are successful businesspeople in their own right, but the award is about successfully getting other people involved in business. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mentoring provided gratis? Do you suggest we assess her notability as an academic? -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mentoring might or might not be provided gratis, depending on the individual in question. In this specific case, I suggest we assess her under the general notability guideline, as someone whose activities generate coverage and who has received a national award for what she does. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She charges fees. Arguing that she's just someone who "promotes entrepreneurship through education and/or mentoring" makes her work appearing as some kind of freely given benevolence, which it is not. She was running a business of promotion and she still does. The only claim to fame, as far as Wikipedia notability is concerned, is that award. Quite lame. -The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No intention on my part to make any such suggestion. I think that might just be you reading into things. Bournemouth University and the Queen seem to disagree with your assessment of her achievement as lame. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be still ongoing and several editors have indicated that they are not sure yet of their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. She is known strictly for a rather non-notable award. I see Keep suggestions based on the fact that this is not a paper encyclopaedia. This is a standard excuse for trying to include everything under the sun, irrespective of the notion of verifiable notability mandated by Wikipedia, i.e. information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful; the "not-paper" attribute is not a free pass for inclusion. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly collected biographies and information. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage of Yes Chef alone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Well, even if that TV show, which her now-former company had created, were notable, notability is not inherited. Which the show is not. -The Gnome (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the arguments above: seems like a pretty clear keep. Sadads (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:MAJORITY input. In the meantime, we're still waiting for sources. Friends, number of editors means little without any reference to policy and specific supportive arguments. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established, as per policy, by arguments above. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7 INeedSupport ^:3 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Adele Croucamp[edit]

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

There is some claim of notability in the article, but it seems to me to fall far below the GNG threshold. Looks like a promotional piece rather than a proper article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per A7. Not only does the subject fail notability standards, but clearly an WP:AUTOBIO given the article's creator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7 Ceethekreator (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a tun of the mill psychologtist with no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is blatant A7 (person) material. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 autobiography, per creator's userpage --valereee (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — WP:A7 - WP:AUTOBIO.Tamsier (talk)
Speedy delete Definitely A7 material. I've tagged it as such. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy deleted per clear consensus above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo

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) 19:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Throckmorton[edit]

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

Minor musician with no serious claim to notability. I see no evidence that he passes WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG Hugsyrup (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of blog mentions and a podcast interview, but no RS. Even the references provided with the article are not about him. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:09, 18 May 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) 19:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Windsor[edit]

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

Subject is a Canadian politician who has not won any elections or held in any high level politician positions (lost twice in 2015 and 2017). Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019

(UTC)

WP:NPOL specifically states that a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" may also be included. Considering the Mr. Windsor has run for the same position 3 times in the same area. To this community he is considered a major political figure with media apperances reaching the national level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zech22 (talk • contribs)

That criterion covers the notability of mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. Every unelected candidate in every election could always claim to pass that criterion if it included candidates, which would mean that NPOL #2 cancelled NPOL #1 as inherently meaningless. You've also shown no evidence whatsoever of this nationalized coverage you claim he has. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate in an election. Most sources are primary and of those that aren't, one is a general announcement about the 2015 elections and he two others are actually the same source referenced twice about him filing to run in said election so its also a WP:GNG fail. Additionally, the article was created by an account that has only made edits either to this article or articles that have some relation to Windsor so this could also very well be a case of WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some candidates may be notable, but this one is not. There are no references about his career or anything but his status as a candidate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is being used for election purposes and this candidate is not notable. If/when he gets elected it could be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL. – bradv🍁 01:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — a person normally has to win the election to be considered notable as a politician, because with only rare exceptions the notability test for politicians is holding office and not just running for it. There are two possible ways that a non-winning candidate can get around that — if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or they can be especially well-referenced to a volume of nationalizing coverage that goes significantly beyond just what every candidate in every election can always show and thus marks their candidacy out as a special case (e.g. Christine O'Donnell) — but neither of those conditions have been demonstrated here. This just cites one piece of routine local "party announces candidate" coverage of the type that every candidate in every riding always gets, and four primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after October 21 if he wins, but nothing here qualifies him to already have a Wikipedia article as of May 21. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 21 May 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 Panthera hybrid. Consensus is clearly in favour of either merge or redirect, with no clear consensus in favour of one particular option (roughly even headcount and sound arguments on either side), so going for merge per WP:PRESERVE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-tiger hybrids[edit]

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

There are already pages that cover Lion-tiger hybrids, including the animals about them. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 14:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 14:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Panthera hybrid - I'm assuming that is the article Lafayette Baguette alluded to. --Nessie (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nessie, that's primarily what article I was referring to. There is a full section about lion and tiger hybrids. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panthera hybrid for sure, though I'm not so sure what would be usable for a merge from this page. Most of it is anecdotal or unsourced, and if anything is added to Panthera hybrid, it probably needs a rewrite from scratch. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Panthera hybrid - some useful additional material; specifically, some references for stuff that at this point is marked as unsourced at Panthera_hybrid#Lion_and_tiger_hybrids. I also like the early English records; nice find. I don't think we need a separate article here, however. (And if merging, also please do some serious polishing - this is not exactly a joy to read at the moment :/) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Panthera hybrid and possibly Felid hybrid. None of these articles are particularly large and all could do with rewriting. One article might be easier to maintain. If the material on any particular hybrid becomes substantial there are in individual hybrid species articles. Jts1882 | talk 16:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Panthera hybrid#Lion_and_tiger_hybrids per Elmidae - use the refs to improve the content there. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Panthera hybrid; I consider references too poor for merging. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge a redirect seems like the best choice, but the Panthera hybrid article still needs more sources, so any useful source on this article should be added to it. Garlicolive (talk) 15:30, 18 May 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 Speedily deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be A Star (UK TV series)[edit]

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

This article a blatant hoax. (Because this hoax has survived on WP for over two years, could the closing admin please archive this article over at WP:HOAXLIST, the instructions on how to archive are on that page). This article was spotted by @Kam Solusar: and after failing to find anything to support it they notified WT:TV. I've also searched and failed to find a shred of evidence to indicate that this show ever existed. I've searched for the program, checked the work history of the presenters and celebrity stars and searched for some of the contestants, I found nothing in each case. The only thing found were loopbacks to the WP article. X201 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see no sources to support that this TV show exists and seems like a massive hoax. For example The partners will hate each other in a sing-off. Why "hate each other". No sources in article to support anything either. Seems to be created by the same person (the account names are similar) ~~(maybe they forgot their first account's password)~~. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts have been editing at the same time, so seems unlikey that, if connected, the person forgot their password for the first account. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROVEIT. If no sourcing can be found, esp. for a TV series (like this), it is unlikely that it ever existed. Thus, the odds of this being a hoax are indeed very good. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 17 May 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. Deleted as an obvious hoax and WP:SNOW. No salt applied yet, but if the socks return to try to recreate it, the seasoning than then be used. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Airways[edit]

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

WP:NCORP fail and most likley a hoax. Absolutely no suitable sources from searching in google for the name of the airline (Google). Searching for the phrase without quotes brings up a different airline (and no results for this airline).

There is a Facebook page, however, this (according to several people in the posts comments and in reviews) is a hoax, as they are using photos of other people, seemingly endorsing the airline, without permission (e.g. facebook where the person in the image asks "Why you put my picture here?"). Also there have been attempts by a new user and IP to say that the airline does not exist (diff) / the airline had a revoked certificate (diff). This could just be vandalism, but coupled with the Facebook page, it seems likely that these are users who are acting in good faith.

Furthermore, all the sources used are about a "Asian Spirit" airline. This airline's wikipedia page redirects to AirAsia Zest and several sources in this page say that it is now part of this airline (and not Astral Airways). Furthermore, sources (and the source wikicode) used on Astral Airways are directly copied to this article from AirAsia Zest.

Even if the airline does exist, I would still say that nearly all content contributions to this are made by accounts seemingly created by someone connected to the airline (or someone wishing to create this hoax) (User:Astralair778, User:Sweety9909 (same userpage content as previous account), User:Flyastralairways), so I would say that WP:TNTing the page wouldn't be a bad idea. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astralair778. All accounts listed above are linked via CheckUser, as well as other accounts. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry and the case was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php7788. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are continuing to try edit the article, even when they are blocked on their original account. For more info see the SPI page above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are creating more accounts... Please, if deleted, can the page be WP:SALTed as they look unlikely to stop. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable hoax. If it does exist, it fails WP:ORG. Regarding the first AfD, what would be the merge target? Without RS, a merge would be inappropriate. Miniapolis 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-obvious hoax. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MegaFlyCraft (talk) 08:10, 21 May 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. In addition to the comments I would note that no rational was made for deletion anywhere including in the OP's statement. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maho Film[edit]

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

This was CSD'd but recreated with a complaint of getting deleted too quickly, so lets give them a chance. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All contents are sourced. Per WP:V, it is not speculation. There is no such crystal ball to the page. I've created several similar pages about Japanese animation studios to Wikipedia, so I clearly know what should be created. The page is more like a stub-level page, preparing for the future works. -- Unnamelessness 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also we need wp:n. Their own page is not enough to establish notability. We thus have one source only. They have not even made their first show. Also (and I only just realized, it does not even mention MahoSlatersteven (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add, and again I only just realized this, they have been in operation for about a year, and have not made one single TV show.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If It's for My Daughter, I'd Even Defeat a Demon Lord is their first independent TV series. That doesn't mean that is their first show. To tell you the truth, they've done three more works. But as they are not their own animation productions, so I did not write into the article. This is an edit-consensus (or an unwritten rule). -- Unnamelessness 14:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, the company has five works in total. (4 [7] + 1 [8]) Two of which are notable, so I write into the page and they are all sourced. Meet WP:V and WP:N. -- Unnamelessness 14:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were kind of right, they have to be notable, in their own right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To further prove its notability, I googled the company and found at least four websites aniDB, CIANDO, Anime News Network and IMDB have the company's profile. -- Unnamelessness 02:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though some of the contents in infobox aren't sourced. Meets WP:NCOMPANY. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All can find in ref #1. -- Unnamelessness 03:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (WP:SKCRIT#1) (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mkstemp[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we covering POSIX API calls? Because if we are, this is clearly one of them, and notable. It's dull, but worthy. It's not at all exciting, but it is used enormously widely, and widely documented. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced to multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in good detail, so it passes the general notability guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination after great improvements show it can pass the GNG threshold. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 19 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Packett[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Small city (pop: 24,000) "mayor", which in this case is simply a ranking councillor. GPL93 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he were a normal mayor of a city of 25,000 that would not make him default notable. However since in Salem the mayor is not the person who runs the city, but the "head of city", who is the president of the city council with some extra honorific functions, he is clearly not notable. The city I used to live in, Sterling Heights, Michigan has over 130,000 people. However we have deleted articles on the mayor there because of the fact the position is honorific. True, the mayor of my current city has an article, Mike Duggan, but Detroit, Michigan is a city of about 700,000 people, the center of a metro-area of at least 3 million maybe more, a key point in international manufacturing, with a strong mayor who is by any account one of the most significant politicians in Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for mayors attaches to directly elected executive mayors, not to the kind who is simply selected by his or her own colleagues on the council to chair the meetings but has no executive power of his own — and further, mayors also have to serve in significantly larger cities than just 24K before an inadequate article gets handed a presumption of notability pending significant improvement. He could still potentially clear NPOL #2 if the article were a lot better sourced and a lot more substantive than this, but rotational mayors in cities this size do not get an inclusion freebie just for existing, and the fact that this is still the best anybody has been arsed to do in a full decade after his mayoral term does not speak highly of his potential to get Heymanned over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 22 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Raby[edit]

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

Time for another AfD. Having a debunked claim to be super old is not inherently notable, and having no reliable sources from this century (indeed, none from after 1901) is a good indication this is thoroughly non-notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sustained significant coverage in the New York Times, medical journals and other newspapers explicitly causes the subject to meet the GNG. Contrary to the nom, who seems to have failed to do a simple WP:BEFORE check, there is a New York Times obituary from 1904 (see it here), and the medical journal coverage is from 1910.
We're still not even in this century, or even within 100 years, there. Hardly sustained. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, seeing as there's no policy that I know of that defines the number of years that coverage is needed in order for it to be sustained, I propose that coverage over the course of 14 years (1896 to 1910) is sufficient to meet WP:SUSTAINED. Bear also in mind that notability is not temporary. "Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Sustained coverage and ongoing coverage are two different things. The subject clearly met the GNG then and therefore is notable now. schetm (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when the coverage was, shouldn't necessarily matter, but we also have to consider the scope of the coverage. I don't know exact history of NYT, but based on their wikipedia page, they had a circulation of about 9,000 in 1896. Would it still have been only considered a local/regional(including NJ) paper back then? The times weren't even being circulated to Philadelphia until 1910, and thats not that far away, so I can't think they were more than a local/regional paper during the time these articles came out from them. The Oxford Ledger and News and Observer would both be local from North Carolina(where he was born). Sophia Gab is also mentioned in that medical journal article, and if there is/was local coverage from Chicago, would that also make her notable? This all depends on what we consider the Times back in 19th century just local or not. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the notoriety of the New York Times at the turn of the century, nor can I speak to Sophie Gab, but I do know that Raby gets close to significant coverage in this Washington Post article from 1910, and the medical journal article was repeated in a number of medical journals across the country. Given all this, I don't think the coverage was strictly regional. schetm (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Lack of recent coverage is not a reason for deletion if the topic's notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His fake age claim got some buzz in various publications at the time, but has not WP:SUSTAINED the passage of time, nor were sources like the NYT WP:SIGCOV at the time these articles were published. They were just local news. Therefore, he also fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National coverage over the course of 14 years is easily sustained coverage. It doesn't have to be sustained over the course of centuries because "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". Even if the NYT was a local paper back then, the coverage therein is still significant because the articles about Raby "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." schetm (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by schetm WP:GNG is not temporary. He is GNG for the claim, not sure how he loses his GNG after the claim is debunked or unsustained. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 16:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The age of the sources is irrelevant per WP:ITSOLD. And what really seems to be driving the nomination is systematic dislike of old people contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 19 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Nawash[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and is most likely either an WP:AUTOBIO or a PR piece given that the editor that created the page has mostly only contributed to this page and the article for an organization he works for. GPL93 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:11, 17 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Boulders[edit]

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

no citations; no quality secondary sources found online DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:51, 17 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE: Uncaged VIII[edit]

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

No evidence this is notable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page directly from iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/wwe-uncaged-viii/1463847704 Maxwell7985 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 20:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s gonna be deleted, delete every Uncaged article, because it makes no sense to argue one shouldn’t be here and to keep the rest. It’s no less notable. 205.213.203.16 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that every Uncaged article should be deleted. They didn't chart on Billboard and were not covered in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 23:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other rubbish exists is not really a keep argument, it is rather a delete the other crap as well argument. The article must stand on its own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally checked if Uncaged VIII is available on Spotify. I do agree, that if you plan on deleting Uncaged VIII, then you should delete all Uncaged pages. Because if you find this not notable, none of the Uncaged pages are notable. Kntx12 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Uncaged VIII is not notable, then neither are the previous Uncaged albums. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansen Sebastian's 2nd: Your keep vote does not make much sense. Just because the other albums have articles, does not mean this one (or any of them) are notable or should have articles. StaticVapor message me! 18:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, it kind of does. It contains notable songs from WWE that are unreleased for WWE The Music. Look at the album on Spotify. It doesn't need to be on the Billboard charts to make it notable. Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 02:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansen Sebastian's 2nd: Being on Spotify and containing unreleased songs does not make an album notable. See WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Those are the notability guidelines that apply in this AfD. StaticVapor message me! 04:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any reliable sources on the net about this album. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per failing the WP:GNG. Its probably too late to bundle them in now, but a bunch of these WWE music albums could probably be bundled together in a future AFD too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM and even WP:GNG. Once again, the argument that "other, similar stuff already exists in Wikipedia" is, per WP:OSE, not a valid one. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 24 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie The Welder[edit]

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

Anon's draft recently moved to mainspace by User:Ritchie333 who noted "probably not notable but there's a DYK hook in here somewhere". Well, the problem is that while the article makes for a cute hook, if it's not notable, it can hardly be DYKed. And I am afraid this fails WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage outside a few snippets in local/niche magazine, ditto for coverage by a local TV station (WENY-TV), no awards, few minor exhibitions. Not all artists are notable, so at best this seems like WP:TOOSOON. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional language can be seen.(WP:PROMO)--PATH SLOPU 14:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

has the promo been removed? seems ok to me Mujinga (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst some sources may have been added since the proposal was made, there seems to be enough indepth coverage in reliable third party sources to establish notability - carmen electrode, snips magazine, miller, stitcher, WENY, welding source etc. i found another interview very easily (and added it). Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe she squeaks through on GNG. National magazine coverage and two TV segments a year apart. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This fails WP:GNG as well as NCREATIVE by a few miles or so. Nothing apart from the AWS video. There's a niche magazine (which are almost always willing to publish stuff for pay and quality control is very low), a few paragraphs in a local source (which covers hundreds of women in a similar fashion, from quick glances), a random podcast, two blogs, a PR page by a welding equipment manufacturer and her own website. Ritchie333 and DYK need to be separated for some time, in light the greater good. ∯WBG^converse 17:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Winged Blades of Godric: That hardly seems fair. You decided to redirect another of Ritchie's DYK candidates. You find the sources of this article inadequate (and appear to have missed the two TV sources). On the basis of those two personal opinions you state that Ritchie should be kept away from DYK. Thank you for your opinion. Next! Yngvadottir (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Yngvadottir, probably not notable but there's a DYK hook in here somewhere is a ridiculous reason to cross-space shoddy articles and I can move about a few hundred drafts, if I went by such a criteria.
  
  I did not decide to redirect WPT of my own whims; there existed a consensus about the action which went unchallenged by either of the involved people, despite ample notifications.
  
  I missed to mention those two sources in my comment, apologies. The ~8 minutes of coverage across the two local channels hardly changes my stance. ∯WBG^converse 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I saw the draft>Article space request at WIR and thought she would not be notable, but it got published in any case. There is indeed some coverage, but I cannot get away from the perception that the article is promotion and not imparting any useful information, and we are not here for that. It's basically an article on someone who welds and had published two DIY books, and had a few articles written about her. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes indeed inspiration blueprint seems self-published, but horseshoe crafts is on Simon & Schuster (link) on Racehorse Publishing under Skyhorse Publishing, which i don't think is self-publishing. Overall, it's an interesting case this, kind of on the edge. Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sourcing is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Squeaks past on the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marginally. As stated above, I declined a G13 on this draft, thinking it might be possible to expand to mainspace standards, but was sceptical that it was possible. After rewriting the article, removing most of the promotional text and finding additional sources, I concluded there was just enough for it to meet WP:GNG and moved it into mainspace. (Note the diff given above by Piotrus with the comment "probably not notable" was when I declined the G13, leaving it in draft, not when I moved it to mainspace which was after the rewrite). The litmus test I use for all articles is "can a neutral and uninvolved editor rewrite this past stub standards using independent and trustworthy source material", and that's what happened here. The book deal and evidence of sponsorship also helps. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 20 May 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. Sandstein 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fashun VP[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines, let alone WP:GNG. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anyone who can say they're 7 things as this article does in its MOS:FIRST is either going to be clearly notable or clearly not-notable. This falls inter the latter category. There is no RS suggesting he passes GNG or MUSIC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here is no RS suggesting he passes GNG or MUSIC.VViking_TalkEdits 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The artist was part of a group that won GA Music awards, which is a major music award. Shouldn't that qualify for WP:MUSICBIO? They also have had a number 1 hit single, supported by several of the RS. The article has been edited with several resources added to support his notability. Jfluence (talk) 2:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the comments given by jfluence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page appears to have been carpet-bombed with sources dumped at the bottom of the page in an attempt to show notability. The majority were extremely weak, and I have removed these with individual edit summaries explaining my reasons for doing so. What now remains is: one reference in 'USL Mag' which smells strongly of a press release or being self-written, but I don't know enough about USL Mag to assess. The remainder are YouTube links which I strongly doubt are adequate sources, but I can't watch YouTube videos right now to assess them, so I'll leave them in place. Overall, my view of the recently added sources is that they are worthless and do nothing to establish notability, so I'm still on the delete side of this. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional text since its subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. The group might perhaps merit in the future a Wikipedia article, on the stregth of their #1 hit in the R&B single charts, but not now. Even so, the individual members of the group do not (let's say, again, not yet) possess independent notability, since that's not inherited. The kamikaze creator of the article has been trying quite hard. Who knows why. But no dice. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 24 May 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. Sandstein 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Združena Komuna[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable movement or publication, it should be deleted for the same reasons Nedim Jahić was as it's nothing more than their blog. Praxidicae (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Youth movement "Uprising" for the same reason. Informing Piotrus who has already left their opinion in case this changes it.Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the same case, so you can treat my vote as delete for both articles for same reasons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 165 Google hits, not a single one in Scholar or Books. Fails WP:GNG, plus, no references, so fails WP:V, possible hoax too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the hoax about Nedim Jahić . 130 issues is a joke for a publication. --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not related to the hoax actor/musician. It relates to the activist.--Auric talk 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Youth movement "Uprising" Delete.~~ --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've already !voted above. I've struck out the duplicate !vote.--Auric talk 22:48, 22 May 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. Sandstein 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mankirt Aulakh[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The references are just a download site and a site giving lyrics. The article has been tagged for better sources for a long time, and still nobody has provided any. Yhto Plwhm (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yhto Plwhm (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.103.200.134.149 (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yhto Plwhm (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Yhto Plwhm (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like this is a real musician, their videos regularly get over one million views (in some cases 20+ million). But I cannot find any source that discusses this artist. They've won no awards, I cannot find them in the Indian charts, and they've had no coverage in RS. I cannot verify rotation by a major radio or music television network. Alex.osheter (talk)

Comment this musician seems like notable in India, but i found nothing in english sources, please search with hindi language! 103.200.134.149 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 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) 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Tucker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails ENT and gng and would not have passed pornbio either Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & no significant RS coverage is available, so delete. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage from reliable secondary sources, thus failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability is based on "awards" given by a porn producer to promote its own product lines, which should not have been treated as meeting even the most lenient PORNBIO requirements (which, of course, are no longer sufficient). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 22 May 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) 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slammers Creepers & Pods[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2012. The 14 results for the name on a Google search are all copies or aggregations of this Wikipedia article. Looks like WP:ONEDAY. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to me like a classic "something made up one day" case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the above - this looks to be a clear case of WP:MADEUP. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 17 May 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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Manor, Indiana[edit]

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

Coordinates point to a random rural road [9]. No substantive sources establishing notability or existence as a community other than listing of place name in database or atlas. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Listed in the Board of Geographic Names' National Gazetteer [10] which is the minimal threshold required per community consensus. Chetsford (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please point to that consensus? That is merely a listing that it is a name that has appeared on a map, with no context. This is a random road, not a town or village. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Can you please point to that consensus?" No, I'm not going to do that because GEOLAND is a notability guideline. I have no burden of proof to demonstrate the route by which it became a guideline. "That is merely a listing that it is a name that has appeared on a map, with no context." Per GEOLAND, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. A legally constituted body of a sovereign state (the U.S. Board of Geographic Names) has recognized (a distinct threshold from "approved" or "sanctioned") the existence of Southeast Manor, Indiana by the simple act of publication of its name in an official volume (context or description is not a requirement). Therefore, it meets the minimum threshold of being "legally recognized". It does not have to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NGEO states that geographical features, which includes communities, must meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline (WP:GNG) to be presumed notable - even meeting the GNG does not guarantee notability, but this place does not meet GNG, so it is a clear delete - the WP:GEOLAND guideline says nothing about a minimal threshold - if there is such a consensus among the community, then the guideline needs to be updated to reflect the new standard, but as it stands, we must follow the guideline and delete Southeast Manor, Indiana, as non-notable - Epinoia (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND says no such thing. In fact, it clearly says these things are notable. This is disruptive behavior and certain editors need to stop it now. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Southeast Manor is one of several settlements in Indian nominated for deletion by the same editor (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, which closed as "keep"). Southeast Manor is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
- The US Department of the Interior identifies Southeast Manor as a populated place.
- The State of Indiana identifies Southeast Manor on a list of municipalities.
- Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Southeast Manor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT, WP:NGEO, etc.(Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments)--PATH SLOPU 13:42, 17 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow, Indiana[edit]

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

Coordinates point to a "Sleepy Hollow Road" with about a dozen homes but there are no sources establishing this is an actual community with notability rather than a generic neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete Keep Community has received significant, non-trivial mentions in books from Indiana University Press [11] and Emmis Books [12] as the place-subject at which a legend in the folklore of the people of Indiana is set, as well as several archival newspaper mentions discovered on newspapers.com. Passes GNG. Revert back to keep based on Magnolia677's comment. Chetsford (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Chetsford, the subject of the article is two hours away from the site at Frankfort, Indiana mentioned in the book, and the second one specifies it's in Clinton County; not that a place mentioned in a short folk tale is notable. Can you quote these newspapers for me to suggest that this "Sleepy Hollow Road" is what they're talking about? Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the catch. Based on this clarification, striking and moving to Delete per OP. Chetsford (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND contrary to nom's ridiculous assertions that it doesn't. Enough is enough, if this continues we may need to take this escalated because these AfDs are clearly not appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNIS lists every little subdivision and neighborhood as "populated places"; this is not a village or town. It's a ridiculous assertion that a database entry alone makes a single street notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT, WP:GEOLAND, WP:NGEO.--PATH SLOPU 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, when estate agents refer to a community by a name [13][14] then we can be sure that it actually is known by that name. Thus, the neighbourhood has a name, not just the road (which is South Sleepy Hollow Road, not Sleepy Hollow Road). SpinningSpark 01:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sleepy Hollow is one of several settlements in Indian nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, which closed as "keep"). Sleepy Hollow is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
- The US Department of the Interior identifies Sleepy Hollow as a populated place.
- The State of Indiana identifies Sleepy Hollow on a list of municipalities.
- Shelby County identifies Sleepy Hollow on its GIS map, and calls it a "neighborhood" on tax records.
- Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Sleepy Hollow. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia serves as a gazeteer-WP:GEOLAND-thank you-RFD (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a citation from Topozone Maps: Sleepy Hollow Topo Map in Shelby County IN-thank you-RFD (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - First of all, none of the primary documents referred to are relevant except to prove existence.

WP:GEOLAND presumes (not guarantees) notability but that does not mean that an article must exist. WP:NGEO explicitly states that the notability of places can be called into question.

Plus, this fails WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:ARTICLE, WP:MISTAKES, WP:STUB

WP:NOTABILITY explicitly states that a subject's having notability does not guarantee it having its own article.

So merely passing GEOLAND does not guarantee an article. I keep seeing people assuming that it's a silver bullet.

Unless there is meaningful content added to the page it should be deleted. And it's had three years. If people search for Sleepy Hollow they can see all this information on the Noble Township page (or on Shelby County). Note, I say 'all' but there are more characters in the references than in the article.

Kill the article. Spruce up the township page. It will make for a better experience for anyone interested in Indiana's geography than having hundreds of stubs for the sake of having stubs will. If someone comes across some actual information that warrants a page, then it can be recreated, no harm done.

p.s. For any who wish to see a longer-winded argument with quotes from P&G, please see the Hubbard AfD. ogenstein (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of that an argument for delete? It might be an argument for merge, but nothing in that is a policy-based reason for removing the existence of the page, and its history, even as a redirect. In fact, it runs directly counter to policy, namely WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. And yes, WP:GEOLAND is a silver bullet, at least as far as PRESERVE is concerned. SpinningSpark 14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve what? The page is blank. But by all means, merge away. I will support that. I doubt that anyone would complain about that but there shouldn't be a separate article that is empty. This page doesn't qualify as a stub. If people added a few paragraphs of meaningful information to the page, nobody would want to delete it. People are claiming GEOLAND provides notability but Notability expressly states that this doesn't guarantee a page. The argument is that the page must be preserved because of notability but nobody wants to follow what notability means. Stub expressly states that pages can be deleted. And FWIW, GEOLAND doesn't say that an article can't be deleted, just that it has presumed notability. So claiming that Notability or Stub don't support deletion (when they explicitly do) while the number one argument for saving the page doesn't explicitly state preserve no matter what is inconsistent, especially when GEOLAND is a component of Notability. FWIW, until your comment, GEOLAND was the exclusive argument.

You reference ATD but that states that 'If editing can improve the page…'. The page is three years old. Nobody blocked editing for those three years. I would welcome it. But realistically, it's not going to happen any time soon and the page is barren. So merge the page into the township and if sufficient information does appear then recreate the page.

To go back to your use of ATD and Preserve: What is proposed in those policies? That appropriate facts and ideas should be preserved, not that the article must be. Various 'editing' approaches are proposed but we don't have anything to edit so none are relevant. It does offer a solution though, which is partly as you suggest: "Merge or move to a more relevant existing article…" The coordinates are already on the Olive Township page so a delete wouldn't be harmful but a merge would work as well.

Also, I do wish that someone would explain how having all these empty husks makes for a better encyclopedia? I've yet to see a single comment on that subject but this is really the point of it all. ogenstein (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are too far apart. I used WP:PRESERVE precisely in the sense of preserving the information, not preserving the page. If all the information is to be placed in the Noble Township article (not Olive Township as you stated), then we need to redirect the page, not delete it. And if we do that, there is no need to delete the history. In fact, it is required to keep it for attribution reasons. Also, you are mistaken that the Sleepy Hollow coordinates are in the Noble Township article. Neither are some other details like the elevation, the ZIP code, and the references all of which would be lost in a delete. SpinningSpark 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistakes. I confused the Hubbard page with Sleepy Hollow's. If there is no standalone page for Sleepy Hollow/Hubbard, and any references (e.g. search, typed URL, links, etc…) go nowhere except the respective township page, then I would support that. I'm not knowledgeable of the intricacies of 'merge' so I don't know all the implications of going that route. ogenstein (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Magnolia677 and others above; it does meet WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance (talk) 21:25, 23 May 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 Google Fuchsia. Seeing as there might be disagreement about whether any material can be merged over; the only detailed argument is by Finlay McWalter and points against a merger but there wasn't enough discussion to definitively establish it as the consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DahliaOS[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dewritech (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Google Fuchsia as per short text, context in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 13:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anyone can fork an open source project, and there's no independent evidence this fork is notable. Do not merge: there is nothing here supported by a WP:RS, so there is nothing of encyclopedic value to merge. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Fuchsia. This can just be inserted to that article instead of having its own article. INeedSupport ^:3 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete.

Merge if you really want to, idc, but there's no point in deleting useful information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.139.78 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 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. Sources found, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arangkada San Joseño[edit]

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

~~A bit of a procedural nomination as I don't feel comfortable approving this article from the new page queue without input from other editors:~~

Despite having used multiple search engines, I can't find coverage that would establish that this subject meets WP:GNG. According to this article and the articles about the House of Representatives of the Philippines, Arangkada San Joseño is a political party with one representative in the House (although it's not listed at List of political parties in the Philippines). However, I have yet to find a source that confirms this, or that mentions any other information about the party other than that its spokesperson, Zosimo Lorenzo, filed some paperwork to disqualify a candidate from running for congress. To make matters worse, the person listed (without citation) as the party's leader in the article is described as a member of PDP–Laban on their own Wikipedia article.

If the subject really is a full-fledged political party, then I'd be confident that something was out there and would approve it per WP:NEXIST. But based on the available sourcing, I can't even confirm that it's not just a regional affiliate of another party or a one-man-show that should be covered as a biography. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found, withdrawing nomination. Thank you, Howard the Duck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: That's why I tagged that it's a stub. The party's standard bearer in the House of Representatives is only Rida Robes, the incumbent congresswoman of San Jose del Monte's lone district. And, this case is also similar to Asenso Manileño party. It's also a city-based party and doesn't stand out much. - 👦🗣️ 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some refs for 2016 and 2019 elections. The party did win one seat in 2016 House of Representatives elections, but in 2019 they chose to run under the National Unity Party label and won. The party won the mayoralty election in 2016 and 2019 in the "Arangkada" name in 2019. It being named as one of the six major local parties in 2016 is a big enough feat as several local parties exist but it made the cut. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:39, 23 May 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 Jawani Phir Nahi Ani. Any usable content may be merged from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Khan[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character. Either delete or a redirect to what they are from be the best. Wgolf (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Though maybe he is notable, though from the look of the article it just looks like one big original research for a fictional character, plus we don't need articles for all. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to series. No real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jawani Phir Nahi Ani - no inherent notability - does not meet WP:GNG (has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") - so delete or redirect - Epinoia (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (as per context in WP:MERGEREASON)--PATH SLOPU 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manual (musician)[edit]

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

Notability, plus Jonas Munk interview on Pitchfork not sufficient for BLP sources In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable via multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC through the coverage shown by Michig above. — sparklism ^hey! 08:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria#1 with significant coverage in multiple music reliable sources as identified above such as Pitchfork, Pop Matters, Exclaim, AllMusic and book sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 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. It seems like there is no consensus here about whether the sources are adequate to justify notability and there is little discussion on whether the award.does establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kalyandev[edit]

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

This article is, to put it mildly, a complete disaster. Once one works through the ridiculous age claim and the effusive gushing about this guy, there's not anything of any substance left here. The awards are notable enough for a minibio on Longevity claims, if they can be proven; right now there's absolutely no sourcing to back them up. Even with those, per WP:PAGEDECIDE there's not nearly enough substance for an entire standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- extremely dubious article about a man who supposedly lived to the age of 128. The sources are sketchy and the article is written in an inappropriately hagiographic style. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO due to his receipt of the Padma Bhushan, "a well-known and significant award or honor." This is verified in this source, which is already included in the article. schetm (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he won said award, that can be explained in one sentence. And from looking through said award, far from everyone who won it has a stand-alone article. A minibio would be just fine to explain that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, where are you getting your facts? A quick survey shows that the overwhelming majority of the award winners do have stand alone articles! WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a great argument, but my point still stands. At any rate, there's more than enough in the article to justify a stand-alone page anyway, and the thrust of the article, unlike those of other longevity claimants, isn't about his age claim (which is only discussed in one sentence, BTW) - it's about the well-sourced stuff that he did. schetm (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not "well-sourced", it's effusive gushing. One of the "citations" is expressly labeled a press release, and the others are somewhat but only mildly better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is two national newspapers (sources 4 and 6 in the reflist) and a journal article (source 3) only "mildly better" than a press release? They're reliable sources that demonstrate notability. And, as another reminder, despite the NPOV and hagiography concerns, AfD is not cleanup. schetm (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a couple one-off articles and a dubious journal. That's how. And WP:TNT, while an essay, is absolutely something worth considering when there's very little to no content worth keeping. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles (including this one I just found) unquestionably demonstrate SIGCOV. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the journal is dubious. The fact is that Swami Kalyandev was notable for doing all the stuff he did, so I would question how much really should be removed anyway. schetm (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same thing as often seen in these longevity AFDs. People decide by themselves that an article is "bullshit" and then every supporting reference is also labelled "bullshit" because they include the longevity claim. They then move to delete the article based on the lack of supporting references that aren't "bullshit". It's circular reasoning - the claim is BS, the sources are BS because they support coverage of the claim, so the article should be deleted. Yes, we get it - the claim is likely not true - but this isn't for us to decide, it's what the references reliably show that matters. FOARP (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, this guy's age claim isn't considered biologically possible. Knowing that, Wikipedia should not base biographies on sources that overtly fly in the face of biology. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says verifiable information has to be forced into articles even if it's obviously wrong, which is why, years ago, a huge RfC removed the "verifiability, not truth" wording at WP:V. We can obviously disagree on the notability of the subject, but it's not circular; in this case, anyway, this is based on what RS on biology currently say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you get it. This biography isn't based on the age claim. It's based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The age claim is only mentioned in one sentence, and is met with skepticism there. At any rate, this guy is notable apart from the age claim. The sources here aren't gushing over his 127th birthday and his diet at 126. They're presenting news about awards received or are giving a robust biography, which is what separates Swami Kalyandev from other longevity claimants or supercentenarians. This is also why any minibio on Longevity claims would be misplaced. It's worth noting that there are no minibios on Longevity claims, and it would just be messy to create a lone one. schetm (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in question, in my view, are hagiographic, despite the veneer of reliability. The age situation is just one part of many where the sources are being uncritical of extraordinary claims; this is where a normal reference work, in my mind, would filter out this sort of noise. If this is closed against my suggestion I certainly won't go rogue or anything. And finally, the longevity myths article rather neatly handles minibios, so there's no obvious reason the longevity claims article shouldn't be able to do so as well. (Also, to avoid making it sound personal, I have appreciated your feedback on other issues in this topic area and certainly don't want to drive you away). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sigh, I thought we were done with these AFDs on super-centenarians? The references in the article show WP:SIGCOV, notability is easy to show based on his rewards. The article is hagiography but AFD is not clean-up. That his claim of living to 128 probably isn't true doesn't matter. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of us are trying to make Wikipedia contain less bullshit. I'm sorry you don't like that. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And some of us understand that, since there are a lot of things that are BS but well-referenced and possibly notable for reasons other than the things that make them BS, you shouldn't just go on a deletion spree. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 17 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett O'Brien (Politician)[edit]

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

City councillor who hasn't received any coverage beyond routine election press. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Searching online was a bit difficult due to a plethora of other people with the same name, but even when searching together with relevant keywords I couldn't find anything significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, city councillor of a mid-level city with no notability of his own. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:POLITICIAN is demonstrably not met (local councillors do not meet the expectation of "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"). WP:GNG is also not met (other than routine coverage of the subject's participation in elections/etc, the only other coverage that I can find is this type of thing - which is hardly "significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail".) Guliolopez (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable local councillor, Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spleodrach (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limerick is not a global city for the purposes of clinching the notability of its city councillors under WP:NPOL #2, so the notability test he would have to pass is that he could be extremely well-sourced as having significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. But with just four sources here, of which one is self-published and two more just trivially namecheck his existence in passing while being fundamentally about something other than him, that bar has not been cleared. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 22 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Growth[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the best coverage out of the sources provided is a two sentence blurb in Entrepreneur (and I'm not even sure if they're generally RS) in an article giving similar overviews of half a dozen books. Other provided sources do not appear to be reliable. I was unable to find any substantial reviews in reliable sources searching online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least rename. I can imagine some good-faith reader searching for "explosive growth" and expecting to find something of the likes of exponential growth rather than some obscure book by someone not notable enough for his own article with an app not notable enough for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I see two reviews - one in Irish Tech News (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG) and very brief one in Entrepreneur Europe list. I think the first review is WP:SIGCOV but the second is really more of a sales pitch for it and barely discusses its content. Per WP:NBOOK we need two non-trivial reviews which are not flap copy, I think the first review passes this but not the second. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, Is Irish Tech News a reliable source? Based on my limited experience seeing it pop up in references, they mostly seem to run borderline-promotional business press, and the review cited on this article literally has a blurb at the bottom of the page asking for businesses to reach out to them to be featured on the website. Looking at the article itself in more detail, fully half of the text in the article is promotional copy. The actual review itself reads like a middle school book report, although I'm not sure how much that matters. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is if half the article reads like it is promotional material, then the other half does not, and even though it does ask for companies to advertise with them it doesn't have anything saying that the article itself is promotional. Yeah, it's pretty borderline but since it has an editorial team etc. it does appear to be a WP:NEWSORG ased on the fact it claims to have an editorial team etc., though more evidence could easily change my mind about that. FOARP (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, with promotional and otherwise unreliable references. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 May 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, with a small dose of WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isares[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The disambiguation mentions "Isares" is a synonym of the Macrobrochis moth. Nowhere in the article "Isares" appears, therefore it goes against WP:MOSDAB and WP:NOTDICT. It also mentions that "Isares [is] Thai male given name", Ram Buttri Road is not about the name, does not mention it is a name created after Rama Isares, and the article merely mentions "Pao Suriyakul, who was the daughter of Prince Rama Isares" (WP:COATRACK). If Rama Isares is notable, it needs an article. But right now, this page is not disambiguating something. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Macrobrochis does mention, with a source, Isares as a synonym, and there's also an album by the name, so we have two valid entries so far. I don't think the purported Thai name should be included, while the album article has a notability tag: if it does get deleted one day then Isares could be converted into a redirect to the moth article. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Original publication details: Scientific Name of Taxon: ISARES"; "Current Valid Name: MACROBROCHIS Herrich-Schäffer, 1855". Isares is not in use anymore, it does not says they are synonyms. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the apparently imprecise language: I don't edit taxon articles so that's not my area. I take your word that this isn't a synonym in some technical taxonomic sense of the word, but a former name is just as acceptable as one that's currently in use. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but seriously delete and redirect the unsourced EP. And, incidentally NOTDICT does not mean that moths cannot be mentioned on dab pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.

Keep assuming the EP gets sourced properly - a recognized taxonomic synonym and an album title make a proper disamb pair. If the EP article goes away, redirect to the moth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 May 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.