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.
Delete per previous AfD. Not notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussion. This is not notable software. Hog Farm (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a piece of software, its deployment and the reaction of the sys admin within an institution, without evidence of notability. No reason to overturn the November 2005 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, No sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2020 (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 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.
Keep The nom's characterization of the sources is highly selective and misleading. What the in-depth reliable sources have to say:
Claire Sykes of the magazine Edplay (an independent magazine in print and online - this article appeared in the print edition) did an in-depth profile of the company in 2019.[2] She states "S.W. Randall is the city’s largest specialty toy store."
Bob Batz in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[3] said "the store has been a local landmark since 1970". The nom's claim that it "is not a landmark" is funnily enough directly contradicted by a reliable source which is directly asserting the notability of the company. We rarely see these kinds of strong statements of notability from such a high level of reliable sourcing.
Joyce Gannon again in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[4] wrote a lengthy piece about the store and its history. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the largest/leading newspaper in Pittsburgh it is the city equivalent to LA Times, New York Times and Washington Post.
Tim Schooley in Pittsburgh Business Times asserts "SW Randall Toyes & Giftes has become a Pittsburgh tradition", another strong assertion of notability from a reliable source.
Notability is what sets a topic apart from its peers, there are many toy stores, why is this one special (notable)? Audrey Guskey, an associate professor of marketing at Duquesne University, noted how different this store is from others and "To find a store like this that’s thriving is truly a gift to the local community" (same Business Times link, emphases added).
Keep per WP:HEY. The first AfD, which closed less than 24 hours before this one opened, was withdrawn by Meatsgains with the comment, "Woah! This article has improved tenfold. I will withdraw my nomination. Great work folks." Levivich's nomination saying that "this is just a toy store in Pittsburgh" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources provided show that this is a well-known and popular store. For example, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article isn't "churnalism", it's a reliable source spotlighting a prominent local store. The article has been greatly improved with many references, and deserves to stand. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I took part in improving the article and adding RSs to reveal the history of the company. Green C has done a great job of revealing misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious WP:DELAFD: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. The AfD was an overwhelming keep a WP:HEY candidate and it was nominated for DYK. FYI: This is a second nomination and this AfD should reflect that. Here is the first. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over.
The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that.
Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books.7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP based on the massive improvements made to this article. That's what I said last time, and its only been a very short period of time, so nothing has changed. I learned recently you can ask someone to reopen an AFD that closed in KEEP if you want to arguing the results. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incineroar. DreamFocus 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not that I think it has any chance to be deleted at this point with all the keep votes, but I'm voting delete in light of GreenC transparently extreme hyperbolic reason for voting keep that goes against WP:GNG in pretty much every way a vote can and plus I semi agree with the original nominator about its dubious notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the sources "extreme hyperbolic" sounds a bit.. hyperbolic. The sources themselves are directly asserting notability. This is why GNG says "Significant coverage". What is "Significant"? Some people believe it's length, long articles, but that's not what it means. It means significant enough to demonstrate notability. It could be a single sentence in the New York Times (eg. "The person was the most important scientist in their field"). That alone, a single sentence, is significant coverage. Which is exactly what we have here: the store is "a Pittsburgh landmark". Another source says it is "a Pittsburgh tradition". These are direct assertions of notability, it is only hyperbole if you are personally disagreeing with the sources. But that goes against GNG, which says we look at what the sources say not what we personally believe. -- GreenC 14:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in pretty good shape. It has sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 03:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete OK, so it is a well-known toy store in the Pittsburgh area; but looking for non-local sources, one of them (Hoodline) actually isn't, and the rest are mostly travel guides about Pittsburgh. I'm really not seeing the notability here. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds to me like WP:IDONTLIKEPITTSBURGH. Things that are in Pittsburgh matter too. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This seems like a nice little store that is a community fixture to people living in Pittsburgh. But the coverage is almost entirely local (Pittsburgh newspapers and travel guides), which is insufficient to prove encyclopedic notability. Most long-standing small businesses get some coverage in local newspapers - I just searched for my favourite pizza joint on Google News and found 5 reasonably detailed articles. But we don't have articles about every pizza place, mom and pop store, or local fundraiser, because we are a global encyclopedia, and these topics are not of interest to anyone outside of a small area.
Looking at the non-local sources, Edplay is a trade magazine that publishes native advertising [5], and the article is an interview with no independent analysis, which is not held to be a GNG supporting source per WP:INTERVIEW. The entirety of the coverage in the WSJ article is: "People come in and are open to suggestions," said Jack Cohen, owner of S.W. Randall Toyes & Giftes Inc., a chain of four stores in Pittsburgh that saw strong sales of train sets, dollhouses, stuffed animals and rocking horses. - clearly a trivial mention. The main claim to notability is that it is the largest and oldest toy store in Pittsburgh and that it has been described as a "landmark" or similar in local newspapers, and while that is probably enough to pass A7, it is not enough to pass GNG in the absence of solid sourcing. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not give proper weight to WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The word "significant" is important. Because the sources, while mainly local, are making direct assertions of notability ("the store has been a local landmark", "Pittsburgh tradition"). It's not merely coverage. Significance runs along a spectrum. One might still prefer to have coverage in sources outside Pittsburgh, but this is arbitrary when we have top-tier sources asserting it is a notable store over a length of time. Pittsburgh is one of the largest cities in the USA, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a Pulitzer-Prize winning paper (2019 last) with national recognition. -- GreenC 17:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh is not one of the largest cities in the US. It has a population of like 300,000 (2.5M in the metro area). It’s 66th according to our article. And those Post-Gazette pieces are still advertorialchurnalisminterviews. You can find those kinds of stories printed about every local business in every local paper across the USA. Walk into any pizza shop and they’ll have an article on the wall from their local paper talking about how they’re a "local tradition" or "landmark eatery" and so forth. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 17:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Churnalism means something a Putlizer Prize winning paper we don't associate, the standard of proof is higher than gut feeling - anyway it's a pejorative term (as churnalism says) the same as IDONTLIKEIT. The store is located around and serves the metro area. 2.5M is a big metro area by any measure. DC has about 600,000 people is that also a small place? No because if you include the metro it is much bigger, most people moved out of the city into the burbs and it has become one large place. This sort of hair splitting and pedantics is typical of this afd, it is a sign of how marginal the delete case is. -- GreenC 18:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's also not true. Pulitzer-prize-winning news outlets also engage in churnalism. Everybody does it–I mean, literally, studies have been done. [6][7][8][9]. Washington, DC has 700k in the city and a metro pop of almost 7 million, and it's still a small city – 20th in the US. This store's lack of notability is evidenced by the fact that nobody outside of Pittsburgh is talking about this store, and nobody in Pittsburgh is talking about this store, either, except that the local paper interviewed the owner a couple of times for fluff pieces in its local business and neighborhoods sections. The applicable guideline, WP:NCORP, is explicit about this in the section WP:AUD: On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Also, WP:ORGIND talks about trade journals and interviews. Some of these sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH for being trivial, or WP:PRODUCTREV because they're product reviews (the product being the store). Finally, the article fails WP:MULTSOURCES because two interviews in the same publication (Post Gazette) counts as one source (they're not independent of each other, as required). This article just doesn't pass NCORP. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 18:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "Everyone does churnalism" could be used for every news source on every topic. I believe that devalues the concept of "churnalism" to the point where it's not a useful term anymore. I would want to see a much stronger consensus on what "churnalism" means and how to apply it before accepting an argument that says "everyone does it". -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, we don't decide whether or not churnalism is a real thing. It's the subject of academic study for pete's sake. Reliable sources decide things, not Wikipedia editors. And it's not an argument against every news source on every topic–it's just an argument against using local newspaper write-ups about local businesses as the exclusive source for an article about a local business. We don't do that, there is global consensus not to do that, and it's documented at WP:AUD and WP:MULTSOURCES, and basically WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. The point is that every business gets written up in its local newspaper, and so that doesn't confer notability, and we are not a directory of every business, just the notable businesses. The question isn't whether people like Pittsburgh or not. It's whether this business is notable, and whether this article topic meets our notability guidelines. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 19:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette doesn't call "every local business" a landmark nor treat them with kid gloves, it is an investigative paper with professional journalists and editors. It publishes un-flattering stories about local companies. Simply being a local business does not assure "fawning" coverage. In light of the paper's reputation for reliability and unflattering stories of local companies, the evidence for churnalism is not there. Following your logic, any flattering story of a local company is churnalism ie. it would not be possible for the paper to assert notability except by way of a negative story. We don't do that, it is bias favoring negative stories while ignoring the positives. -- GreenC 15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think your suggestion that those two Post pieces are "investigative journalism" or written by "investigative journalists" is ridiculous. But let’s assume you’re right. That’s still just one source, and NCORP requires at least two. What’s your second? Bizjournals.com? Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article passes GNG, NCORP is a higher bar you have chosen and it passes that also. The source you refer to is the Pittsburgh Business Times, bizzjournal is the aggregation site that hosts their content online. Investigative paper is speaking to the reliability of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ie. it sends people out to interview and discover, for editorial fact checking, it is not merely a shop re-hasing content it publishes original stories. We don't and can't know everything about the history of each news story so we look at the reliability of the newspaper as a source. -- GreenC 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG also requires multiple sources. Bizjournals.comowns "Pittsburgh Business Times". That’s just the name of bizjournals in Pittsburgh. The company puts one of those out in 43 cities. It’s just a native advertising platform. If you don’t believe me, search RSN for Bizjournals.com and see what our colleagues have had to say about it. You’re confusing advertorial for journalism. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to make disparaging claims without evidence, this time "native advertising". It doesn't add up. First I checked RSN and don't see much conclusive only a few threads with little supporting evidence. According to native advertising the FCC requires some idea we are looking at advertising such as “Sponsored by [brand]” at the bottom. There is nothing in the article to indicate native advertising. Ok so how likely is it they are hiding it? The author Tim Schooly identifies as a Journalist and has been around for a long time. Named journalists have a reputation, is he known for native adverting? Schooly's other work at the Business Times has been picked up by reliable sources [10] which is odd if it is advertising. Schooly has published articles like this that don't look like advertising. The claim of native advertising seems weak. Then I found this statement by Business Journal that confirms they have been doing some native advertising, but only since 2016 (recall the Business Journal in question is from 2009), and that "We label all native as “sponsored content” – the preferred FTC labelling. We take one of the more conservative approaches in the industry with very clear, prominent and transparent labelling." Rather than a secret conspiracy to hide true motives, the simple explanation is they are a business magazine producing legitimate journalism. -- GreenC 18:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, I'm sorry, but you just keep saying things that are completely wrong, like "Pittsburgh is one of the largest cities in the US" and "NCORP is a higher standard than GNG" and, now, Bizjournals doesn't do native advertising. It is frustrating to discuss something with someone who appears to just be making stuff up.Q: Why does Levivich say Bizjournals.com does native advertising?A: Because Bizjournals.com advertises it[11][12][13].Levivich[dubious – discuss] 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THEY DO SOME NATIVE ADVERTISING BUT ONLY SINCE 2016 AND IT IS LABELED AS SUCH. Clear now? -- GreenC 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that many of the !votes are dismissing reliable sources. Yes, they're mostly local news or travel guides, but nothing really convincing has ever been shown to indicate that they're somehow inaccurate or unreliable. This is solid sourcing, which proves the store's notability as a landmark and prominent local business. Naomi.piquette (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets GNG since it has been mentioned in over 200 newspaper articles nationwide over the last 30 years.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What part of GNG talks about being mentioned in lots of newspapers? Also, do you have a link you can share with an example? Levivich[dubious – discuss] 13:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he's referring to newspapers.com (subscription required). 269 of the 289 results are from Pittsburgh and a majority of the results are newspaper ads, directory listings and passing mentions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was holding out hope that an editor with 50k edits wasn’t seriously arguing that an article met GNG based on how many newspaper.com hits it got. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 14:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None or few of which seem to be about currently operating businesses (NCORP). This isn’t a historical biography, you have to weed out advertising. Search results alone are meaningless. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Apparently that is what you have done on your 2 Good Articles and 5 Did You Know articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I don’t think I’ve ever argued in an AFD that a topic meets GNG based on how many Newspaper.com hits it has. That argument is more or less the opposite of what GNG requires, which is very, very clear about brief mentions not counting. I’ve seen this argument made before at AFDs but usually it’s from new editors. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
House of Flavors is a very prosperous modern business and I based this Did You Know article on newspaper clips.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is wasting my time. I won't respond any further as I have made my point. I'm going on to making my next Did You Know article which will be based 90% on newspaper clips. You can argue all day if you want. I plan on doing more constructive things like making more Did You Know articles and Good Articles - based on newspaper clips. See ya....--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, posting anyways) I think you have both made your point clear and discussion is straying further and further from this article. Probably best to end this thread as it is getting a little personal. Thank you both for bringing up these points though :). Kees08 (Talk) 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any violation of the policies cited by the nominator. Ergo Sum 19:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I see this unique toy store as more than just a store, but a historical landmark of sorts, a half century old, widely noted. No, it's not as notable as the White House, but, aside for meeting WP:NRV, the reasons to keep are now overwhelming. It's discouraging to see the article re-nominated for deletion after it's already been decided that it should stay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources have been identified to indicate this subject passes WP:GNG. — HunterKahn 00:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a week in to this Walking dead exercise in resurrecting an unneeded WP:AFD. 13 KEEPs and 4 DELETEs. And a lot of comments, to be sure. Proving conclusively that a lot of valuable editor time has been wasted on tilting at windmills. I recognize that WP:AFDs are not !votes. However, You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises. Time to close.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural Close Malformed AfD due to technical error. Closed with consent from Nom. StarM 01:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This malformed nomination has already been reported to the nominator at User_talk:Meatsgains#Christine_Morrissey(Just to save anyone else going round the loop I've just done, finding that someone else got there first)PamD 10:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why this page was suggested for deletion. Morrissey is of significance as she played an role in influencing Canada's immigration laws to be inclusive of LGBT families and has continued to be of significance since this legal action, in leadership roles with organizations within the country. Further, her achievements have been recognized by the Canadian government, which in 2019 awarded her with an Officer of the Order of Canada. The sources for the information on this page are from mainstream news sites and academic journals. She has been the source of significant media coverage since the 1990s.
Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:ANYBIO states a person is warranted of a Wikipedia page if:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.[8]"
Morrissey has received a significant award and plays a role in the history of LGBT rights within Canada. For these reasons, I would strongly urge this page not to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnonkes (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 March 2020 (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.
← Add bottom template
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 subject fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The references found in the article are all WP:PRIMARY, either from Rampid's website or on website of the engine's manufacturer (and the game isn't mentioned). I found [14], but that alone isn't enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been essentially unsourced original research for over a decade. The content is written in a game guide style that would require a complete blanking and rewrite to meet basic style standards, assuming even that the subject is notable and encyclopedic. My searches suggest it isn't. ReykYO! 18:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article's rules are too detailed, and the variations between Northwestern University's rules and Penn State's rules are unsourced and probably not relevant. However, WP:ARTN says that the way that the article is currently written doesn't affect the notability of the subject. If it's written badly, then the article should be improved, not deleted. I added the references to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, articles should not read like an instruction manual. All of the references are game instructions, so this article can never be anything else. Also lacks notability because there are no in-depth articles discussing the topic. Glendoremus (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glendoremus. Aside from the fact that article is written in a completely unencylopedic manner, the article in its current state is nothing but a WP:HOWTO guide, and does not indicate notability. The sources posted above are also just instructions on how to play, meaning they could never be used in any way that would allow the article to be anything else. The game certainly exists, but none of the sources actually demonstrate that it is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2020 (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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks at the sources in the article, it's very clear that he does NOT fail WP:NFOOTY. He has played a game in Svenska Cupen between Allsvenskan teams IFK Göteborg and IK Sirius. And, because "players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable", this article should not be deleted. // Mattias321(talk) 17:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. 16 year old at the start if his career - we afford him the time to meet GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:51, 7 March 2020 (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.
I messed up, remove this nomination. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am the article subject's representative. I regard my client as a non-notable, private person, and that I want the article to be deleted. Tbetzold (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close: The article is poorly and inadequately sourced, no error, but this isn't the proper venue for the request. The nom needs to go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, where among other things the volunteers will ascertain whether the nom indeed speaks for the subject. Ravenswing 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this discussion open and judge whether the subject is notable enough for an article, which would be what we would do anyways after the subject contacts a volunteer. – Thjarkur(talk) 00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near meeting any inclusion criteria, so we do not have to determine whether the request is actually connected to the article's subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST and almost all sources are passing mentions. Note: it was created by a single purpose account. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to flawed nomination of this well-regarded journalist. No explanation provided by nominator why subject fails WP:JOURNALIST. A simple WP:BEFORE check reveals plenty of significant coverage in independent English language media, some of which I have added; and this is about an Israeli journalist. A trove of Hebrew language reliable sources surely exists as well. Bringing up the single-purpose article creator is a red herring, as 34 editors have contributed to building this article since 2007. Havradim (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted journalist and TV media commentator. Plenty of reliable sources. No reason whatsoever to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another isolated rail siding, now removed and with nothing around it. Evidence suggests it was nothing more than a water stop. I did what searching I could but between names and trucks it was hard to get anything even vaguely relevant. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of anything more than a railroad landmark. –dlthewave☎ 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is absolutely nothing in the article that is important. Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm a couple months too late to comment but shouldn't we really be redirecting these to a list of Arizona railroad siding place names as it's a valid search term as it appears on maps? This one is impossible to search for as "Mack Arizona" seems to be a fairly common company name. SportingFlyerT·C 07:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, We may find hundreds of similar points on the map. It is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even more obscure than usual. Not listed in The National gazetteer of the United States of America: Arizona (rail sidings usually are). I can't find anything else. Glendoremus (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - the article/stub is not about a populated place. fails WP:GEOLAND. Behindthekeys (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2020 (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.
This artist is not notable. Doesn't appear to make a claim of significance apart from having streams on Soundcloud. All of the sources cited are the paid-for-spam thing influencers use to prop themselves up for Wikipedia articles (three of the cited sources are the same "Kidd is an upcoming artist in Boynton Beach"[20][21][22]). Also a bit funny/jarring to read the other cookie-cutter interviews in this source. No coverage in reliable independant sources. – Thjarkur(talk) 15:57, 7 March 2020 (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.
I can't see a credible claim of notability here, and am not convinced that the sources cut the mustard. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model. Considering she was born around the time Iran became an Islamic Republic, some of the language on how this effected her life course needs to be reconsidered in the unlikely event we keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no coverage of her. The author picked me out (I don't know why) to ask me for a review for notability, with special mention of the additional footnotes they'd added. My review wasn't favorable, and I haven't found any addition sources elsewhere to make a case for meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This bio has been around since 2006, with no sources, in various forms. Redirected a few years ago but redirect ended recently. Attempt to restore redirect rejected, so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete°. As written, sounds like a cut and paste from promo material. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a copyright violation. And the overwhelming majority of the article is about Train, not Underwood specifically. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The individual does not appear to be notable at all outside of his association with the band. It could probably be useful as a Redirect to Train (band), but it should probably be deleted first, to prevent any more attempts at restoring it to an article. Additionally, there is absolutely no sourced content here needed to preserver or merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete via G11 for blatant promotional material. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the above. Search yielded no significant results. PK650 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; if there is a felt need to impose some revert roadblocks by deleting first, by all means do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources in the article on present. Since it is a biogrpahy of a living person this is a very major problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not sourced , looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Then it can be redirected. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed as new page reviewer. IMO there is no topic here suitable for a Wikipedia article. This is basically a dictionary type entry on the word "Hitakami" with two short unrelated definitions given for it, and no real coverage of any topic. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, most likely. There are a variety of sources available on this, some of which are available on the Japanese page. The article falls under the same sort of pattern seen at Fusang, Nakoku, Wa (Japan), etc.; I disagree that it is in the class of a dictionary definition. Dekimasuよ! 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO the changes done since I nominated it have clarified it was a specific topic. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We do not have a wikigazetteer, so that there is nowhere to transwikify to, which is what I would have noted for if it was a pure definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. After recent improvements to the article, the nominator has now voted to keep and effectively agreed that the AfD can be closed. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed as new page reviewer. IMO the album separately does not satisfy wp:notablility. Sources is a brief mention in an article and an on-line review, plus a cite which doesn't seem to verifiably define a source. 98% of this article is a massively expanded track listing, including a separate listing of every performer for each track. The rest is just two sentences. The SNG specificly describes this situation and recommends merge into the artist's article. If so-decided and nobody else will I'd be happy to handle that if the closer would ping me. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the head's up. I've expanded this article somewhat. When I wrote it, I was like you, new to a unique situation. Since then, I've expanded my knowledge on writing articles a bit. As for the "massively expanded track listing." It's my opinion that an article should include as many facts as possible. For example, if I want to read about this album, I think it's important to know who the musicians were, just like I would read them in the liner notes. Without that information, the article is incomplete. I know brevity in an article is usually preferable. Maybe I could have condensed it some, but I like to follow the original notation as much as possible. that being said, if my current improvements still don't merit a separate article, merging it would be the lesser of two evils, I suppose. I'd rather keep it as is though.HowlinMadMan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought, I'd like to expand on the inclusion of the musicians. When mentioning a song in casual conversation, you wouldn't expect someone to rattle off the names of every contributor to that song's existence. That would just be silly. I believe that in print, however, that premise is entirely different. One can choose whether or not to read the list of credits. If you include those credits, the reader can make a choice. Don't include them and you've taken that choice away. It's like telling the reader what they should be allowed to know on the subject. Credit is an operative word here. When writing a permanent article about a subject which is available for the whole, wide world to view, I believe it is important, if not imperative, to give credit where credit is due. Some of my music album articles will name Discogs and AllMusic as being a source of where I find information. This is true only in the sense that I do some copying and pasting of information to save myself the time it would take to type it. I then take the liner notes and modify that information to match those liner notes more exactly. I find that those two original sources are often inaccurate and incomplete, but I still feel they should get credit for helping me obtain my goal in a more efficient way. I still appreciate them, even though they're not totally reliable. I contribute to Wikipedia to give others like myself a chance to read a more reliable, more detailed article. You can take this article and merge the basics, doing away with all the credits and other things you don't find necessary or important, and you're left with something at least… just not enough something to paint a whole picture.HowlinMadMan (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythyms which have been added to the article, passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO the addition of the reference and content moves it close enough on the issues which I nominated it for to stay. BTW the unusual degree of expansion of the track listing was not an AFD reason, it was just discussing that the non-context content was 98% an unusually expanded track listing. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no dissenting opinions now, can this nomination simply be withdrawn? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would have done so but didn't know that that option was available once the discussion has started.North8000 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a pretty well known and common D&D race, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of notability or passing WP:GNG here. While there is the 1912 "gnole", this article is clearly about the D&D version, and the former isn't notable either. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Gnoll. Surprisingly few sources on the creature, and what there is just falls into the usual array of game material. There is a one-sentence mention in the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters that merely states that their names were taken from the 1912 story mentioned in the article, which is not significant coverage. The "Other Appearances" section in this article is also rather strange, as it is claiming that a completely unrelated creature, that was very likely just named after the same source that D&D Gnolls were named after, is somehow connected to the D&D creatures with absolutely no sources to back that up. After deletion, though, a redirect to the article on the more notable subject of The Gnoll should probably be created in its stead. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Shame we can't find enough sources to have a generic (not just DnD-specific) article on the entire race, which does have recurring presence in various media. But I can't find any in-depth coverage that is not pure niche PLOT, either. The best I could find is one sentence of literary analysis here. Perhaps a mention of gnolls in literature would therefore belong in The Book of Wonder? Do ping me if better sources are found, but I don't think this can be rescued with one sentence of good quality content (reminder: GNG requires in-depth analysis). PS. Mention added. If we had an article about the short story in question, a disambig could be considered, but since we don't, I think redirect as suggested above is best, with a hat note that 'for gnolls, see Book of Wonder anthology'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic fails to establish notability, and there's no particular content worth saving. Even if it deserves a spot on a limited creature list, nothing in this article is particularly relevant. TTN (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2020 (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.
Non-notable creature that fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Lacks notability in secondary sources and entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. It could be all ogre for this article now. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Ogre" is an extremely common word that has been used as a type of monster in a wide array of fiction for centuries. There is absolutely nothing to indicate why their usage in Dungeons and Dragons is at all independently notable. The only non-gamebook being used currently is the "For Dummies" book, which was just a game guide written by, then, current employees of Wizards. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing better. As there is no information here that is not just in-game information, there is nothing worth preserving or merging elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2020 (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 Hollyoaks. Tone 08:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A story line in a UK soap opera is not inherently notable and this subject lacks reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NTV. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2020 (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.
Fictional concept appearing in a single comic storyline (Batman: The Long Halloween). The topic fails to establish notability, and all relevant context can be handled by the main article. TTN (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comic book character-cruft. Fails WP:GNG as non-notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman: The Long Halloween. While the "character" is not independently notable from the storyline they appeared in, that series is notable, and Redirecting to there would probably not hurt. As this article is nothing but a summary of that storyline, which is already covered in the target article, there shouldn't be anything that needs Merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman: The Long Halloween. I suspect there may be offline sources for this one (I remember a few Wizard articles, but my Wizard collection has long since been recycled), but in their absence, a redirect is plausible and gives a method for a cheap refund if sources eventually turn up. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character isn't notable outside of the Long Halloween/Dark Victory miniseries. Redirect is unnecessary since 1) any reader knowledgeable enough to search for this character should be competent enough to find the Long Halloween article and 2) there's no reason to think a reader searching for something as generic as "Holiday (comics)" wants this character instead of, say, this or this. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2020 (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.
He is one of the many stand up comedians in the country. There is no significant coverage or important works to mark WP:ENTERTAINER
or consider general notability. The9Man | (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment, It seems it was very recently deleted as well. The9Man | (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning towards a weak ke3p, but interested in others' comments. Creator of Amazon India comedy show; there's a lot of promo/churnalism, but non-trivial, independent RS coverage is also available (2 of the references are interviews).[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Two trivial mentions from international RS sources; but the BBC one adds an important part to the notability of the subject (ie the new class of comedians emerging via streaming services and not Bollywood).[1][2]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 7 March 2020 (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. KaisaL (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Falk is considered an analytics guru in NBA circles and his work is regularly cited in the media. However, this article should be kept because of the extensiveness of the outside sourcing. There are multiple, independent sources which cover Falk as the subject of their coverage.--TM 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Falk is more than just a high school basketball coach. He was in the NBA for 5+ years and spent time as an executive. Sports Illustrated did an extensive profile on him. Clearly notable. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: he never played footballbasketball" in high school or college or professionally. He never was a coach in college or a professional team. He was the 76ers " vice president of basketball strategy, " for 2 years. He is now coach of a highschool footballbasketball" team in a Philadelphia suburb. The articles are PR and the headlines show it. eg., , "Ben Falk Brings NBA Experience to Barrack" If the GNG was meant to cover this, we're not an encyclopedia/ Even the best papers publish PR if they want to make a point, and in this case the point is that he's an Orthodox Jew. I have no idea how common or uncommon this may be in his profesion. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: He's known for basketball. Best to know the sport you're talking about before commenting on it. Regardless, he was the #2 man in the Sixer's organization and was an executive for 5+ years in the NBA. Clearly, notable. Also, Sam Hinkie and Howie Roseman did not play sports professionally, but are clearly notable as executives. Same with Falk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NBA executives are usually notable, and Falk is no exception. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was never a coach or major player above the high school level, he is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently on the fence regarding notability but I would like to point out that Falk worked in NBA front offices for five years, but was only an executive with the 76ers for a little under two seasons. Even then NBA executives in positions similar to his are not considered to be default notable. Finally Falk wasn't Hinkie's number 2 guy, the best I can find is the Inquirer article which refers to him as one of Hinkie's right hand men. Sachin Gupta, who doesn't have an article, likely holds that distinction if anyone does (per The Athletic, Philadelphia Magazine). Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the above arguments do not address the key question: does he pass WP:GNG as the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent sources? If you examine the links on the article itself, you will see that this is clearly the case. Whatever his role with a particular team, this is the metric with which we need to judge all articles.--TM 14:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Falk's titles as a lower-level NBA executive and high school head coach don't by themselves suggest notability, but substantive coverage of him in the The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sports Illustrated, and The Times of Israel puts the subject over the hump to establish GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per what Jweiss wrote above. Though Falk's titles themselves don't suggest that he was particularly important, the coverage he got in national (and even international) media tend to indicate that he was more influential than those titles would suggest. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the references. I think these are enough for notebility. — Note to closing admin: Virenderthind2019 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
You need to look at sources yourself along with WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. None of the sources you cited discusses the subject in detail, they're all passing mention (not significant coverage) and most of them are not even reliable. GSS💬 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check 1st and 2nd refs. on the Article. Are those not reliable? 3rd and 4th are Interview on youtube. and some of refs are secondary reliable sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GSS. All references except the PTC article, which is a press release, are passing mentions or completely unreliable sources like Youtube videos. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2020 (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.
Completely lacking in reliable sources for over 12 years. No sources in any searches. If a source can be found, there may be place for a paragraph in Nitrox, but this should never be a stand-alone article. RexxS (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Membrane gas separation. It is the same technology, probably just a niche terminology problem. (assuming there is anything of value to merge) otherwise just a redirect will do. Finding sources is mainly a matter of using the mainstream terminology, then Bingo, we have a real if rather technical encyclopedic article on Wikipedia already, complete with a fair number of solid looking references. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 05:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a good alternative, Peter, although Membrane gas separation is a very different article from this one (probably because it has sources!). The Membrane method of gas concentration article seems to have been used over many years simply as a coat-hook for a couple of manufacturers to hang their nitrox concentration products on. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current content of this article is a description of one type of membrane gas separation system specifically used for oxygen enrichment of breathing air. I am reasonably confident that it is a fairly accurate description given these limitations, and could be referenced by the link you removed as spam. Not the greatest reference, but not the worst by far. Manufacturers of industrial equipment usually describe the working of their products reasonably correctly, and it is not promotional in tone. Also, it is content that the existing Membrane gas separation article lacked, and I have been having a go at expanding it a bit to cover air separation applications. I have found a few potential sources, but it is largely unfamiliar technology, so I am not very efficient processing it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite confident that the current content is an accurate description of the process, but neither your nor my confidence is tantamount to a reliable source (sadly). My objection to the Nuvair source is that it is promotional. The opening sentence of the webpage begins "Nuvair's patented semipermeable membranes ...", and the second begins "Purchase a membrane system as a standalone product for integration into an existing air compressor system ...". That doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source for other parts of its content, but is not the kind of source I'd be prepared to base an entire article on. It's worth noting that the article's first source was Coltri Sub Asia Pacific, before it was switched to Nuvair without explanation. That shows how vulnerable a poorly sourced article becomes to anyone wanting to promote a particular company's offerings, and we shouldn't be leaving ourselves open to that. Putting the content into a well sourced, larger article, as you've already done, is the way to dilute the effect. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 7 March 2020 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (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.
Entirely unreferenced article about a minor laboratory. Appears to have been created and expanded by editors with a clear COI. Only Google News hits are passing mentions. Most of the first few pages on Google are self-published or are simple mentions of the laboratory in a citation. ST47 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 7 March 2020 (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. BD2412 feel free to refund it to draft or userspace if you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, largely WP:OR article that is otherwise sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Appears to be written for fans, by fans, without any sort of real world context. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This collection is purely as a gameguide. There is no notability for this matter outside of the game. It could be a useful collection for gamers but there are gamer wikis for that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is largely just a list of non-notable fictional creatures that fails WP:LISTN. Pretty much all of the blue-linked entries just lead to other D&D monster lists. All current sources are just game books, and searches just bring up the usual array of more game books, game guides, and trivial mentions. There is nothing that would indicate that the D&D usage of the concept of undead creatures is particularly notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic lacks the sources necessary to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending merger to Undead. Let me know when this discussion concludes. I'll refund it to draft myself. BD2412T 01:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what actual content that is currently in this article you think would actually need to be preserved in order to be merged to Undead - the list of monsters is not really appropriate to add there, and none of the information at the top regarding an overview of the topic is actually sourced. 15:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll figure that out in draft. Obviously, undead exist within the game, which is primary source for itself but a secondary source for a general article on the concept of the undead. BD2412T 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The referencing problem is the key here. I will be happy to provide content if anyone decides to work on the article again. Tone 08:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think keep given an asteroid was named after her. It’s also a significant position in NASA. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, with barely a few passing mentions here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think she passes WP:BIO per criteria one. Having an asteroid named after her sounds like a significant honour. Clovermoss(talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I'm looking for signfigiant coverage about her in independent sources, but have not had much luck so far. This is a WP:BLP, so there should be high-quality refs. It's possible that coverage isn't online but offline, but I'm trying to avoid a "sources must exist" argument. Clovermoss(talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for naming an asteroid are pretty loose, so not a significant formal honor. E.g. 99942 Apophis is most likely named after the Stargate SG-1 villain, and 2309 Mr. Spock after the discover's cat,[23] neither of which have articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Talk:Pamela Jones (NASA)#Possible further references. I suspect that one could vet these & come up with enough references for notability. Perhaps this article should be moved into the Draft namespace until the requisite number of citations are in the article. Peaceray (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 7 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other deletion nominations above. I don't see why this list of cast members (which is basically what it is) should have an article that's separate from the TV show's article. Plus, a show's cast is usually just included on the show's article itself -- so this should be especially true if the list is this short (only 6 people). Whisperjanes (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is zero need for this to be a separate article to Celebrity Big Brother (British series 1). There were just six people in the series, all of whom are named in the main article. Equally, all of the contestants are well-known and have their own articles, so a lengthy discussion of who they are is not required. Dunarc (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2020 (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.
Keep A page being created by a suspected blocked user is not grounds for deletion if it has had significant edits by other editors, particularly if there are no explicit issues with neutrality or notability. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. This just feels like pretty absurd bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake which Wikipedia is not. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a far superior version here, and that should replace this. This should prove Bhargav's guilt. Cyphoidbomb and Cabayi, can you help me here? --Kailash29792(talk) 09:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, Is that what this is all about? You didn't realize a page about the subject had already been created (or just ignored it) so you're now pushing a bureaucratic agenda because you feel your version is "far superior"? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the article is no longer G5 eligible and the argument presented boils down to Kailash having "created a far superior version", which is no argument at all. Kailash's version is A10 eligible. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks as if nom just removed everything from the original article and put in his "far superior" page. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: forgive me for everything I did. --Kailash29792(talk) 09:43, 7 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided, and I can't find any myself. If the article were to be kept, it would need significant revisions to conform to a neutral point of view with regard to the divorce case that this book is about. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searched and could find no independent coverage. — HunterKahn 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable, seemingly self-published book with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources, written by a non-notable author. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find RS for this one. Per the nominator: Fails our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detele Completely non notable work. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I objections are not substantiated per the definition of the purpose of Wikipedia. The primary reasons of objections are: 1. Non-notable work by non-notable author. 2. Does not portray a neutral point of view. I searched the purpose of Wikipedia and it came out to be:
"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing."
In this purpose, I do not see any reference to that knowledge can only emanate from notable works. Again there is no reference to notability whatsoever. The word 'knowledge' also does not contain any implicit or explicit relation to notability. Many times non-notable people in our life such as friends, siblings or parents give us the maximum knowledge. I think the notability criterion needs a relook itself.
The second reason for deletion is that the article needs significant revisions to conform to a neutral point of view. The need for neutral point of view does form a part in definition of the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, this indeed is a legitimate concern. However, in the absence of any direction any objection is without a foundation. Perhaps some examples where the neutrality is absent would have been helpful?
Most of the articles in Wikipedia are not in a NPOV. What might be a neutral point of view for one is biased for the other. The objective of the community is to asymptotically approach that point of view. Of course, anybody, similar to any other article on Wikipedia, has the right to change this article to bring it more towards the neutral point of view.
I do unequivocally feel that the book and the article adds to the body of knowledge of the humanity. The book deals with legal wrangles of two significant democracies. The book brings to fore the important ramification of families torn, particularly when the tearing apart happens in two different countries. The book also expiates on the reasons and ramifications of broken family structure in the United States such as mass shootings, drug abuse, mass incarcerations and suicides.
As such, I respectfully differ with the point of view of other members in this discussion and vote to keep the article. Wilkn (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]
@Wilkn: There is a huge difference between information, and knowledge. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilkn: wikipedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Unless the book, or any subject is notable, it is not knowledge, it is just information. If we keep creating articles for all the information, we will end up creating a "database" instead of an "encyclopaedia". —usernamekiran (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: thanks! So only notable stuff is knowledge? Presidents Trump, Obama, Clinton or Bush may be notable, but not necessarily knowledgeable. However, my primary school math teacher may not be notable, but still knowledgeable. Is that not possible. Yes, all the mainstream media will run after the notability of the aforementioned presidents, however, should Wikipedia also follow the suit? Can I not add a reference to an easy way to do long multiplications that was taught to me by my primary school teacher and he self published it? I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Knowledge and notability are almost independent. If we start testing knowledge with the parameter of notability we might as well rename wikipedia as a tabloid.
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.
Delete: A CV-type article originally contributed by WP:SPAAkash66. Even if the text was referenced it would do not more than list a series of jobs, without claim of notability, and my searches are finding no better. Fails WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This film shows no evidence of notability - it's only sourced to IMDB, and the description makes it clear this is nothing - half of the cast is given as "unknown role". A Google search brings up this entry and the IMDB entry. Nothing here to support notability of this. Hog Farm (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Met90; as much as it pains me as someone in the region who knows her local television work, the article written by the same editor regarding Lori Minnetti has to go too per a walled garden attempt to build WP:N and poor writing (I also highly doubt that subject's appearance in a low-budget horror movie 33 years ago is something she'd like portrayed in pictorial form in her article). Nate•(chatter) 07:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very short film (5 minutes) without substantial coverage in reliable sources, for example no external reviews at imdb and no entry at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2020 (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.
No evidence this company (research institute) passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Deprodded by anon with a suggestion of redirecting this, but Ia m not sure what target would be appropriate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As with IBM Research – Zurich, the article's promotionalism obscures its likely notability: being officially opened by Didier Burkhalter, a member of the national government, is an indication of some importance, and there is media coverage about its "quiet room" ([24], [25]). I'd keep it if it is cleaned up or redirect to IBM Research otherwise. Sandstein 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:41, 7 March 2020 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are press releases, and the one citation that references the New York Times is a textbook example of a source that does not confer notability on its subject: as in this example: "The New York Times is reliable, independent, and secondary – but not significant (a single-sentence mention in an article about another company)." That is exactly what this is. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing mentions by reliable sources and significant coverage from press releases. NavjotSR (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent place. In 2011, an anon added a fake birthplace to the bio of Robin Singh (cricketer). Subsequent editors fixed the real location, but left part of the fake birthplace, S R ngar. Later, another well-meaning editor changed it to S R Nagar, and created the locality.
The originally named place, S R ngar, bhilwara might have been real, but this current locality in Princes Town exists because of an incomplete vandalism fix. While I'm inclined to speedy it as a hoax, it has been on Wikipedia for almost a decade, so I'm more comfortable going this route. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I don't see any sources that verify this place exists. The nominator also gives a good explanation as to why this article was created. All the mentions I've found online are either a copy of the Wikipedia article or they reference the actual S R Nagar that exists (Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar), which is a different place and already has an article. Whisperjanes (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Prescott subdivision, according to the real estate sites and listings. Everything else either just considers it a neighborhood of Prescott or (in the case of businesses there) doesn't mention it at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave☎ 22:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLANDPopulated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivisions are not generally notable. This one doesn't seem to be any different. Glendoremus (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another subdivision around Prescott, as the real estate lsitings and a forum discussion I found confirm. The only claim to notability is that the USGS labelled it on their maps after it was built. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a legally recognized place and fails GNG Lightburst (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2020 (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.
No significant coverage of the subject found while thoroughly searching the Google News database. There are a few stories that mainly focus on the band he is associated with. Dial911 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest redirect to Sonata Arctica per WP:ATD. You could have WP:BOLDLY implemented this without an AfD, especially since the last one closed as redirect. buidhe 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a discussion for that? Half the sources are self-published and a third one is not relieable. Redirect per WP:MUSICBIO. Victão LopesFala! 19:10, 7 March 2020 (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.
Non-notable production company that is only mentioned in passing in the context of specific films. I found no extensive coverage exclusively about the company itself, and coverage is scant at that. Regarding the claims its films received awards, that would be an argument for those particular articles, not this one, unless there was specific quality coverage about the company itself. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Maybe it won some awards, but there doesn't seem to be any sources out there about it and notability isn't inherited anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 9:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
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 Jerk (physics). I took the liberty to perform the merge myself. And I will also redirect the other two, since there is no content apart from the definition. Tone 09:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy merge both this page and Pop (physics) to Jounce, or that page as well to Jerk (physics), all largely redundant and notional. The quoted source says enough: "The fifth and sixth time derivatives are sometimes somewhat facetiously referred to as crackle and pop" There is no useful physical meaning to this, certainly not enough to support an article. Speedy because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crackle (physics) (3rd nomination) had a clear consensus to merge yet no one ever did so... Reywas92Talk 03:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that was only four years ago. Merges need to be done with great care and deliberation to avoid changes that are too sudden. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I checked the terminology and merge is correct as suggested by Reywas92. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – if it helps, I made this page consistent with the format of Pop (physics), if the brevity of the page compared to Pop was part of the problem. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2020 (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. Tone 18:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. The article tells us: "Elizabeth Etienne, is an American photographer. Etienne's images are part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Photography." The latter museum has a website seemingly last updated in 2011 or perhaps 2010. Etienne's website tells us: "In 2014, she hung up camera and set down her pen trading her former career as an award-winning, pro photographer (who traveled the world shooting lifestyle advertising, retro portraits, interiors, events and travel, and wrote and published 3 books on Amazon) for a PASSIONATE career in Interior Design!!" Captain, would interior design make this AfD a matter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture? -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not sure about architecture list but interior design photography and wedding photography (think the dresses:)) especially, is part of fashion, have added this afd to the fashion afd list (see below). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: she seems to have been a probably notable photographer - I've retrieved and added an archived version of one of the sources, and a book review here (but is the New York Journal of Books anything serious or just fed by PR puffery? PamD 15:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On their submissions page, the New York Journal of Books says that you should not submit a book until it is available on Amazon.com. That is presumably so that they can put in the buy on Amazon button at the top of the review. With regard to the archived article on kodak.com that you found, this is not a good source. Anything Kodak wrote about was meant to sell more Kodak products. The same goes for the Nikon profile on Nikon's web site. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It just doesn't add up to enough. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2020 (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.
