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 verify most of the claims on here. I don't think that the co-productions here rise to the level to satisfy WP:Artist(3). Plus the page is completely COPYVIO [1]. As far as I can tell, the claim to WP:Artist rests on being on the short list of the Open Prize (but not winning). [2]Theredproject (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most likely self authored due to the copyvio. Notability not established. 1 ref in the article which can't be checked. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No RS to establish notability. The best I could find was a link to his Couchsurfing profile. His website contains little to no info that would help establish GNG or Artist. Theredproject (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep withdrawn. Thanks for pointing these out. I couldn't find sourcing when doing my search, but this looks good enough for our criteria for artists. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable BLP with virtually no independent sourcing. Near BLPPROD level, but has one source in it. Almost entirely unsourced and would qualify for deletion as unsourcable for the majority of the content under WP:DEL7, even if it might meet one of the subject guidelines. Deletion under DEL7 also means that meeting the notability is unlikely, but that would be a secondary reason for deletion in addition to failing the core requirements of WP:V as a BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sourcing has been added that I did not find on my BEFORE search before making this as a DEL7 nomination of a BLP. I've reviewed the sourcing again, and I do not think it meets the notability requirements, as it is not sourcing from reliable, intellectually independent, secondary sourcing. As such, it should still be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Multiple holdings in several of the most notable musea in the world including MoMA and the National Gallery of Canada. Mduvekot (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 best I could find to establish notability was the indymedia story about the poetry slam [3]. Everything else is passing at best. Plus we have a "Who's who" in the references. Theredproject (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All I could find to establish notability was this one Vice story. [4] Additionally, the page history shows signs of COI, with the subject editing the page. Tone is Promo. Maybe TOO SOON, but right now, I don't think it makese WP:Artist. Theredproject (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It says that his work has been "exhibited and published in Russian and international galleries and publications", but since it doesn't cite anything specific, I'm inclined to believe that it has not been a "substantial part of a significant exhibition" as per WP:ARTIST. Sparkyb10123 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An advertorially-toned page for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine corporate notices, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. Having raised $5 million in venture funding is a strong indicator that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If the copyvio has been removed from the current version, would it be enough to do a revision deletion to only remove the edits that contained copyvios? I think the subject itself might be notable and of sufficient public interest to include an article. Yes, the current version doesn't even make it clear what it's about, but it's a work in progress. Or perhaps draftify so that someone can improve the article sufficiently. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell, pretty much every aircraft has a page on Wikipedia (I'm not entirely sure what the notability rules for vehicles are, admittedly). But it's a multi-role UAV being used by the Nigerian government, and it has an interesting development history. A former Nigerian President is also disputing the noteworthiness, claiming his successor is taking credit for developments that occurred during his watch. Interesting stuff. Furthermore, I believe what text violated copyright has been removed, please advise if you see any that still remains. PvOberstein (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that I've looked around (and the article has been improved), I can see it passes WP:GNG. There are many news articles specifically about this military drone, including the odd political controversy (apparently if a previous Nigerian president had a drone, he has "dibs" so that no future president can have a drone, in the same way that every US president after Washington had to have their own teeth). Also, WP:AVINOTE and WP:NAIR indicate that aircraft types will almost always be notable – although these are just the opinion of the Aviation WikiProject and not formal Wikipedia policy or guidelines, I'm willing to accept their advice in this case. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Military kit is usually notable. Coverage of this type passes GNG. I do not see a copyvio (and copyvios, if an entire article, should be speedy deleted) - and even if there was a copyvio the article could've been stubbed down to 2 lines with supporting refs (which we have enough of in the present article).Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable actress. Being "profiled along with pornographic actresses Devon and Coral Sands on the show Entertainment Tonight, February 8, 1999" is not a sufficient claim of significance. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that she fails PORNBIO, but I think she scrapes by on GNG. In addition to the sources in the footnotes, several reliable sources are referenced in the body of the article. The article desperately needs improvement, but the question is not whether the sources are handled adequately in the article but, rather, do multiple, independent, reliable sources exist at all. Looking at the face of the article, it appears that they do. I count at least five. David in DC (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The controlling issues is pornographic bio, and this trumps any extremely loose interpretations of GNG, which comes about way too often. Pornographic biography still gives us a way to large number of such articles, and there is no reason to allow additional articles on people who clearly fail it without them strongly passing other guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The controlling issue is notability. The SNG's, like PORNBIO, do not replace GNG. They provide criteria that suggest notability in specific areas, especially in an area like pornography, where genuinely reliable sources are hard to come by.
But someone who fails to meet PORNBIO is not automatically non-notable. They still meet GNG if they've garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And the sources must simply be shown to exist, even if they're not (yet) in the article.
Here, we've got evidence of at least five reliable sources covering the subject on the face of the article. It's no a "loose interpretation" of GNG that establishes notability here. A simple, straightforward application of the policy gets us there. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. An outstanding specimen of the virtually information free PORNBIO genre. I'd venture to say there aren't more than two dozen porn bio subjects would could honestly pass GNG and probably, not accidentally, about the same number of porn bios that aren't vapid crap with pictures. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Probably non-notable. I cannot find sources beyond the one listed, and receiving the Medal is not sufficient for notability -- it's the lowest level of the Order of Australia. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a good bloke, but apart from the Star Weekly (a neighbourhood paper) publication, I'm only seeing the usual directory entry stuff for his business. Not enough third party sources to write a fair article about him. Lankiveil(speak to me)01:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
interviews with the subject, print or on other media , do not contribute to notability , and aren ot even reliable sources for anything other than what the subject wishes to say. The other two items are essentially reprints of the OA citation. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep-A film featuring well-known actors and having songs produced by a maestro ought to have got sufficient coverage (reviews etc.) in local sources.And, sources/reviews about Indian film(s) from 1970s (a time from when most newspaper archives aren't online) shall-not be expected to be online/easily available.And surely, this ain't a hoax.~ Winged BladesGodric03:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least two !voters have said it is listed in reference works and other encyclopedias but without saying which ones. As I stated at the top NFILM requires more than "listings in comprehensive film guides". So far no solid evidence has been presented that this exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try using Google Books? It is covered in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema as well as in World Cinema (1968) for example. Plenty of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is more of a content fork for several articles that are covering each series of Britain's Got Talent. I can understand that some people want to list the finalist in this programme, but this list is a complete mess and duplicates information on finalists that articles on each series already cover. The lead also details information best reserved for the main article on the programme - If this was a List of Episodes, it wouldn't be an issue. GUtt01 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is good consensus for Keep, then I hope that those who opt for it, can at least rectify that list and clean it up when this discussion ends, please? GUtt01 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems a valid topic for a list on a very popular subject and saves time for people having to go through each article to find the finalists and this list gives more useful information than is available in a category. Also a number of the entries are notable and problems with the prose can be edited out. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No references to any of the claims made in the article, better suited for an off-wiki site. All relevant information (there is not much of it) is already established on the Arthur page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only some routine coverage like fundraising news. Some of the sources are copy of each other proving them to be press release. Mar11 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo article, which has no enclyclopedic knowledge to the average reader, as except as a business listing. Reads like a brochure. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as native advertising apparently created in violation of our terms of use. This is not a Wikipedia article but an advertisement masquerading as one. However, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, this is not the same business model as an ordinary used-car dealer or website – it is an apparently new and probably notable service where the agent inspects and certifies the car. But even if we had a page on it, I doubt if a company as small as this would merit a mention in it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The article's editors missed a fairly worthwhile album review: [8], but that is the only thing I can find beyond the "DIYconspiracy" magazine article that is already listed. Otherwise the band's media coverage is blogs written by people who went to gigs, and even those are rare. Not enough for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Comment I don't normally contribute to music AfDs but I was curious when I read this. I googled "Belle Nuru" + Grammy Awards and found one interview and this Wikipedia mirror about Nuru being a co-writer of a Jennifer Hudson song. The song in question is in fact a Grammy nominee. However, the Wikipedia entry for that song, Spotlight (Jennifer Hudson song) makes no mention of Nuru. At some point someone obviously added her name to the "Spotlight" article and that was eventually removed, but the ipfs.io mirrored article is a copy of the older version with Nuru's name. I went through a couple of the sources for the "Spotlight" article and there was no mention of Nuru. All I could find was the interview, which is almost worthless as a source. freshacconci (✉)16:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject has requested to delete this BLP via OTRS. The subject claims he created this page himself which is apparently true given that the page contains OR and not many RS. I'm not sure if he meets GNG therefore nominating this for deletion.. Saqib (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He played 14 minutes at fully professional level yesterday,[9] so the article barely passes WP:NFOOTY. I'm not sure soccer notability guidelines were intended to keep articles like this one. It requires a major re-write to pass WP:BLP and MOS:PUFF. If edited to WP:V (and, by implication, WP:BLP and MOS:PUFF), then technically it passes the subject-specific guideline. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article that describes him as "a beautiful flower." Maybe it loses something in machine translation. And the source of the information in the article is his mother. That does not help establish WP:GNG, and I wouldn't cite it in the article except to support a second source that is independent of the subject. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to the "a beautiful flower", it's just language difference. Equivalent in English would be "a budding superstar" or similar. I found only one quote that is from his mother, not the entire article. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as he's played in a fully professional league (Thai Premier League), again in a 14-minute stint. Definitely agree it needs WP:TNT: maybe delete anything unsourced? Also, no evidence of him playing 11 games for Buriram. SportingFlyertalk01:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Agree with the comments above though that the article needs a major rework in terms of tone. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, AfD is not cleanup and our decisions need to be based on notability guidelines. WP:V can be addressed with the assumption that reliable sources will be available for someone who passes WP:NFOOTY. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
TWODABS only mandates using a hatnote if there is only a primary topic plus one other. In this case there is a primary topic plus two others. TWODABS leaves that situation to editor choice whether to have a dab page or hatnotes. I would argue a dab page serves our readers better in this case for two reasons. Firstly, sky pirate is a synonym for at least two of the entries so it is helpful to have that on the page. Secondly, 1-211 Attack-Reconnaissance Battalion is a possible future article which would make a fourth entry. SpinningSpark23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Please refer to this sentence: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." The hatnote would not use too much text as it would read, "This article is about fictional pirates. For real-life use, see air piracy. For the group, see Air Pirates." It is unlikely an article on the attack battalion will be made, so that is a moot argument.ZXCVBNM (TALK)17:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are now four entries on the page (including primary topic). I have restored a previously removed entry with a link to a different, more relevant, page. Cannot be TWODABS now even if primary is excluded. SpinningSpark09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The disambiguation page now has a total of 4 links. Disambiguation ("keep") appears to be the the right choice, no sense in having 3 hat notes on every article involved. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. There were only six episodes of 7 minutes in length each. I'm guessing youtube quality or thereabouts. 2 useless refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I did see a piece from the NY Times and several google book hits, however, they were for the feature film (which is not up for discussion at this time). I am therefore brought to the conclusion that not enough reliable sources are present at the moment to support this being an independent article. If anything can be salvaged and remotely backed up, I would not be opposed to that specific content being merged (that said, I don't see much). (As usual, my "standard (xfd) offer" applies.) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN web series. Web series back in 2008 were almost invariably awful in quality. 2 useless refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete. PRODed earlier today. Concern was: Recently created local news website with no claims of significance or importance. Local sources only. Fails WP:ORG. Deproded by creator under the premise (Talk:Dundee Culture) that less notable similar articles exist. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article had been created describing this entity as a media and news company. The sources included suggested a facebook page had been created by a teenager who won some praise for his efforts. A website now exists which appears associated. Some online polls had been conducted under this banner. There has been some coverage in the Dundee press, picking up on some of this. I can't see that a specific company exists. I can't see that notability has been established when judged against WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Since I first looked at this, I see the article creator has deleted all content from the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. Specifically, there is no evidence of significant third-party coverage (or third-party coverage at all). Obvious WP:SOAPBOXING—no attempt is made to establish notability, and the article is largely a description of the subject's political views. Two of the leading contributors to the article, User:Kentishresident and User:seangabb, have been noted on the talk page as having potential (and in the latter case actual) WP:COIs.
At my count, all but 4 of the 40 sources listed were written by the subject personally. Of these four, one is a (dead) link to the York University Alumni page, one is a list of "Council" members of an organisation called the Mises Centre UK, one is a link to the "Hodder & Stoughton website, and one is an archived article from the BBC website.
Of the remaining 36 sources: 27 are links to Sean Gabb's personal website (all of which are links to articles he has written—16 of which were written for the Libertarian Alliance, which he ran), 3 are to the diploma mill he helps manage, 3 are to the Mises Centre (which he helps manage), one is an obituary he wrote for The Independent, one is an article he wrote for FFE in 1992, and one is an article he wrote for a "journal" called "Free Life". The article references three academic articles published as book chapters, and one review (via his personal website). These do not establish notability (WP:NACADEMIC). The references (via his personal website) to the articles the subject wrote for the Birmingham Post and Gay Times are no longer available on either website.
As for the Hodder & Stoughton reference, no reviews are cited, and there is no evidence that Gabb's writing meets the notability criteria (WP:AUTHOR).
The only vaguely notable material here are the three lines he gets in this BBC article from 2005. Obviously, this alone does not establish notability. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator did a thorough job with the reasoning. Also checked refs and history as per Szzuk, and looked for references on his books: a libertarian blogger wrote the best review I found of one book, and I found two reviews of his first book published by the publisher, which don't appear to be all that quality sources. [11][12] I'm a delete for now, but if this article is a keep, it's because he satisfies WP:NAUTHOR under his pseudonym, since there are some sources interviewing him about his writing. [13]SportingFlyertalk02:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian Alliance. I do not dispute Nom's masterful dissection of sources on the page as he found it. But I began, as is my habit in AfDs with some claim to notability (especially with controversial subjects as a politican who was most active a few years ago ), with a Proquest news archive search. There are quite a lot of hits. So I began to do an expand, source on his political activity. Do note that that the page appears to have been written largely as a PROMO vehicle for Gabb's ambitions as an historical novelist. Regarding the novels, I did find very brief, negative reviews of Conspiracies of Rome, which was published under the name "Richard Blake", but, despite the fact that he was backed by a major publishing house, he fails WP:AUTHOR. He was, however, a somewhat well-known political controversialist. If the article was pared down and diligently sourced, it might well pass WP:GNG. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if somebody undertakes that labour. Meanwhile, there is too much notability in discussion of him and his opinions (often in the form of political columns and coverage of people who viscerally hate him for advocating not only anti-EU politics, but of ideas such as making guns more widely available in Britain as an anti-crime policy,) , nevertheless, coverage of him and his ideas is too substantive for deletion. I therefore propose redirecting to Libertarian Alliance, where his primary notability appears to lie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic problem with the page has been that the subject has used this page to advance his commercial interests which are his teaching activities and a reasonably succesful if non noteworthy series of historical fiction. This means that the non noteworthy elements of Sean Gabb's life have been emphasised, because these are the ways he pays his bills at the expense of his political activity, which does meet notability standards.
The least noteworthy element of his was his leadership, after Chris Tame's death, of the Libertarian Alliance which has recently changed its name to Mises UK. In the 1980s and 1990s this was a think tank that punched above its weight but I think even Mr Gabb would admit that it's not been firing on all cylinders for a while. However there has been another sense in which Sean Gabb has been quite noteworthy and that has been his appearances on media, and there have been quite a few - particularly television - almost all of them linked to the Libertarian Alliance and Gabb's senior position in that. These would argue for a redirect to the Libertarian Alliance page as suggested upstream, however there is one area where Sean Gabb was actually very influential and that was the Candidlist project.
The Candidlist project was a simple list where people who wished to be Conservative MPs in the early years of the 2000s were listed as to whether they were "Eurosceptic", "Europhile" or "?", backed in many cases by correspondence from the candidate themselves. This was notable for two reasons. Firstly the internet had arrived, but it's use in politics was still organisation home pages, discussion groups and conspiracy theories. Candidlist may not have been the first effective totally online UK political campaign, but it was one of the first. The second reason is that it had a profound effect on the Conservative Party as the Eurosceptic selection committees had a source of information on how pro-EU the candidates in front of them really were, so it was quite a bit harder to simply make the right noises at the selection committee. Some would be MPs dropped out and others never got that much further, and this had a longer term effect in that many people found it hard to get the first "hopeless seat" that they often needed to be bloodied before fighting a more hopeful seat. Although the Candidlist project was gone by the 2010 election it created an atmosphere where doctrinaire (rather than opportunistic) scepticism towards the EU was more acceptable among Tory MPs and was virtually compulsory amongst candidates. David Cameron, who was seeking a safe seat at the time, spent a long time trying to get a prized "Eurosceptic" listing on Candidlist - https://www.seangabb.co.uk/europe-the-gabb-cameron-correspondence/ ; this was talked about a bit in Michael Ashcroft's biography of Cameron.
There's a list of news articles mentioning Candidlist, albeit stored by the (resurrected) Candidlist server, here.
If Candidlist had made its mark in 2010 rather than 2001 then I'm fairly sure it would have had a (probably by now inactive) Wikipedia page devoted to it, due to it's perceived "behind the scenes" influence on the Conservative Party, but recentism is very prevalent on Wikipedia.
So I'd keep this page, but not for the reasons that the subject of this page would appreciate.
I knew him, but last met him in person around eight years ago (and that itself was after a five year gap). I'm linked on Facebook, but he didn't ask me to "rescue" his page or anything if that's the allegation. The original edit in his Talk page was to explain that Wikipedia was not interested in what he was interested in, something I'd wish he'd kept to as I think that his political biography does meet notability standards (particularly on Candidlist), but his teaching or authorship or historical novels really does not. It must be noted that his political activism seems very much in the past, which is why there's little interest in that. JASpencer (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like you're advocating an article for Candidlist? Do any of the sources you're referring to include substantial coverage of Gabb, rather than just Candidlist? Ralbegen (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company and WP:COI. I don't see much sourcing and many sources online that suggests that this should be a stand-alone article. Article's tone and content sounds promotional as well. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - As a non-notable supercentenarian. Two GRG tables and a one sentence mention in someone else's obituary does not make someone notable. Also given that these sources strain to pad the article with longevity trivia (oldest for 85 days, third oldest black man, etc) means that even if he was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE would almost certainly apply. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being insubstantially different from the version that was deleted previously over a decade ago. There are currently three sources, two of which are trivial mentions, and the third of which is an obituary - none of these sources establish the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N's requirement of multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent, third-party, reliable sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit was already included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia when this was first deleted 10+ years ago. CanadianPaul14:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there have been repeated discussions regarding the reliability of GRG. While sources are light regarding this person, he had title of oldest man for 85 days, he is the second oldest man of African descent, but above all he is currently listed as #10 in oldest man ever lived. Being in the top ten of such as category appears to be notable. Valoemtalkcontrib08:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, being in the top ten is NOT a basis for notability. Notability is based on the depth and breadth of coverage, something this article clearly lacks. And as for the GRG there have been numerous Afds which have decided that the GRG alone is NOT the basis for claiming notability. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs)01:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep– I get the arguments of the "delete" people as there isn't a lot of info about his life in the article, but ultimately I think that being the oldest living man should be enough for notability. Chessrat(talk, contributions) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he is not living person, he isn't one of top 10 oldest man ever permanently, because there are possible that other living man surppasses Parks' age. And so far, the volume of the article are very poor. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Argument that living past a certain age is per se notable is misguided. There's no policy like that nor should there be. The question must be "Is there significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources?" Here, the answer to that baseline question is no. David in DC (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreated through draft space after an earlier speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Still fails the notability guidelines and looks like promo based on own, related or unsuitable sources. The Bannertalk08:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, substantial in-depth coverage and discussion in several reliable and academic sources. See for example this and this in addition to those mentioned by Billhpike. The page will need considerable editing for tone, excessive reliance on its own publications and so on. Windey is also notable, but I'm not convinced that we need an article on both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreated through draft space after an earlier speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Still fails the notability guidelines and looks like promo based on own or related sources. The Bannertalk08:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, per my note above, is there any further material than what already exists that you might wish to merge into the target university article? Thanks, Lourdes03:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep there are some news sources and he has directed a number of feature films but unfortunately they do not have articles so it is hard to judge their notability Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ARTIST. I notice that fans of artists rush to place text about them on Wikipedia, as a sort of appreciation, I guess. Last night, I happened to watch two documentaries by an extraordinary film maker in a rather closed screening. Knocked me over FWIW. But, alas, he does not meet the relevant notability criteria either. No big deal; the world goes on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I've no idea whether or not Hinduism is a notable religion in Tajikistan, but this page is just a promo for Hare Krishna and meets CSD:G11 in my opinion. SpinningSpark19:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sad excuse of an article overall, and not just on account of its total lack of sources. This one is overdue for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This actress has only had one role of note, the voice of Helga Pataki on Hey Arnold, which is a show that had a small fanbase compared to other Nicktoons. Being the voice of Helga Pataki does not equal making
unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment as per WP:NACTOR. There are very few reliable secondary sources that have any significant coverage of this actress thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Finally this article was PRODed and deleted in July 2015 with the concern being,Does not meet WP:GNG as she is not significantly covered by any reliable secondary sources. The situation has not changed since then. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meetsHas had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions not only for her role in Hey Arnold! but in other voice work as well, such as a Dr. Seuss adaptation. Perhaps draftify if the secondary source issue can't be fixed. SportingFlyertalk19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excepting Helga Pataki, Ms. Smith has not hadsignificant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Note the "significant" in WP:NACTOR. All the other roles that Smith has had are minor and insignificant. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was a voice actor in every episode of the Beethoven television show, voiced the lead character in the Itsy Bitsy Spider television series and voiced the lead character in a Dr. Seuss book adaptation. On top of that, Hey Arnold! was made into a movie, and she voiced one of the main characters in that movie. There are a number of sources discussing her in relation to her role on Hey Arnold!, and she did a Reddit AMA recently apparently. It should be able to be sourced and it clearly meets WP:NACTOR. SportingFlyertalk20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are stating the first point of WP:NACTOR which states that an actor is notable if they havehad significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions while ignoring the other two. The second point of WP:NACTOR states states that an actor is notable if they havea large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The BeetHoven and Itsy Bitsy Spider television series are both immensely obscure and practically unknown and neither could be said to have a large fan base or a significant cult following. The third point of WP:NACTOR states states that an actor is notable if they havemade unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Smith's character in Beethoven is a secondary character, not a main or significant character in the medium. While Smith may have had the lead role in Itspy Bitsy Spider, once again, that series is very obscure and voicing the lead character on a nearly unwatched show does not make the actress notable in an encyclopaedic sense. Neither of these roles could be described as unique or innovative. In fact, bringing in these roles is just a means to obfuscate the article's inherent lack of notability as per WP:MASK. You keep bringing up a supposed role in a Doctor Seuss adaption but so far you have failed to name what that adaptation is and it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The Hey Arnold movie is a continuation of the TV Series and was in fact originally made as a special episode of the series so it should not be looked at as an independent medium from the series. A Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) is a WP:PRIMARY source and absolutely does not make up for the lack of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have always viewed WP:NACTOR criteria inclusively, as needing to satisfy only one of the three. I also view this as a strong keep. Lots of articles talking with her about her work, for instance: [16] I think it's easily possible it could be sourced properly. SportingFlyertalk21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She's had 26 roles in films, movies and video games that are significant enough to have an article on Wikipedia, including The Drew Carey Show, The Secret World of Alex Mack, Hey Arnold! (and the movies), Recess (and the movies), and Lloyd in Space. Additionally, she passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" as she's received 6 major awards or nominations including winning the award for Best Performance in a Voice-Over – TV or Film: Young Actress at the 19th Youth in Film Awards for her role on Hey Arnold! Lonehexagon (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Lonehexagon's comment on the amount of roles Smith has had does not establish notability. The user states thatShe's had 26 roles in films, movies and video games that are significant enough to have an article on Wikipedia. First I would refer the user to WP:OTHERSTUFF and say that just because the media are notable doe not mean that the individual actors that worked on them are notable too. Secondly, yes she may have 26 roles in media that have Wikipedia articles but, as other users have noted, these roles were minor and insignificant compared to her only notable role as Helga Pataki. Winning a Youth in Film Award (note that they are now called the Young Artist Awards) also does not automatically establish notability. Have a look at, for example, the 38th Young Artist Awards, and see how many winners and nominees do not have an article. Obviously winning that award is not an assurance of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You state that her roles are insignificant, but nearly all of them are named roles. I've never seen a Wikipedia guideline that says a significant award doesn't count because there were too many recipients. If it were just her Helga role, or just the award, I could see a possible question of notability, but both apply to her, and she's done dozens of other named roles in notable shows/movies, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the roles are named does not mean that they are significant. I have never said that there is a guideline an award is immaterial for havingtoo many recipients. What I did was point out that winning that award is not necessarily an indication of notability by pointing out that many previous winners. The main problem with this article is that even after the recent WP:BOMBARDMENT there are few reliable secondary sources that provide significant information about this actress. With no sources showing an WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV this article fails WP:GNG. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you can make as definitive of a statement as you're attempting to make here. We get it. You don't think the roles or awards are significant. But you're treading on extremely subjective grounds. You're free to your opinion, but your argument doesn't discount the keep !votes by any means. It's plenty reasonable to find it to be significant to win multiple notable awards for multiple different roles. Sergecross73msg me04:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on you to prove thatthe roles or awards are significant and all you've done so far is WP:ASSERTN that winning the award means the subject is notable. All this article consists of is a list of roles and award nominations: that is not an encyclopedia article and Wikipedia is not IMDB. Even after the recent WP:BOMBARDMENT, the article has few sources and those it does have fail to meet WP:INDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's been done, though. She has had multiple significant named roles in multiple notable movies or television shows. The discrepancy here is you don't think anything she's done is significant, with the possible exception of her Hey Arnold! work (which actually possibly gets her past WP:NACTOR on her own as it was both a television show and a movie x2), whereas the rest of us Keep votes do. SportingFlyertalk01:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense - my argument has already been proven. The subject has won notable awards, multiple times, for multiple different roles. That's a valid claim to having multiple significant roles. All you've done is given a vague, subjective "Eh well it's not good enough for me though, I don't think it's significant" - it's neither possible or necessary to counter that sort of argument. You can respond that to literally anything. You're setting the bar too high. Sergecross73msg me04:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that Francesca Marie Smith's filmography is prolific enough in notable media for a Wikipedia article to be more than warranted for Smith. She has several award nominations/wins as well from established entities such as the Youth in Film Awards. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notice should be paid towards the numerous awards and nominations that Francesca Smith has received, per WP:ANYBIO. Several of the awards are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, so I'd hesitate to gloss over them in AFD; even if her filmography itself isn't suitable for establishing notability, the awards she's received for it might be. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and Salt - Already deleted once for both tone reasons (promotional) and notability reasons. Stripping out the promotional fluff would not leave much. Very little in-depth independent coverage to establish general notability. Also, author hasn't met burden of proof in overcoming conclusion of first AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- i believe the subject is notable and with enough coverage in SouthEast Asias national newspaper, @Robert McClenon: If you read the sources where I based the article from you'll know that I'm just stating a fact not fluff, and also why not help me improve it? as well as @Avaay: read the sources and please help me improve it, I've done my research. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Shenalyn2018[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 is a personal essay promoting the research of William Carroll created by two SPAs solely decicated to Carroll and his work. This neologism does not appear to have gained any real traction outside of Carroll's work [19]. Entirely devoted to pushing one view. Wikipedia is not a free web host for promoting research. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable shareware. The sole source is a review on a blog, and Google turns up nothing better as far as I can tell. Download sites and the like (including exploit-infested ones) are pretty much it. Author company is also redlinked. Article was started by a WP:SPA and hasn't changed much since. The previous AfD was a mess, conflating multiple articles. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least under its older title (Servant Salamander), this software has quite nice coverage on Czech pages: [20] (PCWorld.cz; 1998; basic review), [21] (zive.cz; 2005 comparison with Total Commander). As both are RS, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I was considering to nominate this for deletion a while back but missed it. The subject is clearly notable for only one event therefore delete... on the other hand, there is not much about the subject himself in the BLP, the apparent reason is RS only namechecked him.. --Saqib (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only a few days old, hence the small size. I think, since Manzoor Pashteen has became so famous since the long march (February 1-10), now other editors will expand it considerably in the coming months. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Now the section "Early life and education" has been added. The reference used is from Voice of America Deewa (Pashto), which published "Manzoor Pashteen Profile" just today. English sources will also be added when they are published. Khestwol (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will agree with FWd82 here. Wikipedia is one of the first places people get their information from regarding any topic. It was a big and popular protest among the of Pashtuns of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Manzoor Pashteen was the main organizer. He did receive a lot of social media coverage and most of the news articles cover him along with the event. He is an activist and yes he wasn't well known before this event, but now he is. The article should be kept. Ketabtoon (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reason? Please note that Google search now returns more than a thousand results for Manzoor Pashteen (including reputable media sources indicating his worldwide coverage). He is becoming more and more popular each day. Therefore, WP:Notability is not an issue. Khestwol (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the two persons who merely !voted, without stating any reasons, are the delete !voters (Storm and Maaz). I have asked both of them for their rationale, so far no response. Also, the nom's comment that "The majority of the text is similar in both articles" is no longer valid now. Khestwol (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The references appear to cover him almost entirely in connection with the movement. There is of course the possibility of a separate article later on. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Pashto-language VOA (Voice of America) reference cited in the article covers his personal life. Its title translate to "Who is Manzoor Pashteen?" Also please note the relatively high number of views the page has got although it's just a new page. Manzoor Pashteen was viewed 2,566 times since Feb 6. It implies Wikipedia users are interested to view the page Manzoor Pashteen. Khestwol (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the criteria. The deleted Priya Prakash Varrier article has significant page views and yet the page was deleted. I am still not convinced about his notability. The listed references are like news reports and they don't cover the subject in depth, some references do not even mention him. samee talk14:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier that's not a criteria. Therefore, I did not mean that this article be deleted based on page views or the consensus has reached to do so. samee talk21:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin: More and more mainstream media news sources cover Manzoor Pashteen, who has became the main leader of the current uprising by the Pashtuns. The number of times Pashteen is being mentioned by sources keeps increasing with each passing day (LINK). Pashteen is currently leading a Long March to Quetta attracting a lot of attention from the international media. Khestwol (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The delete !voters must elaborate their reason. And not simply !vote. The purpose of this discussion is not to only !vote, but to also present arguments. The nom's arguments no longer apply to Manzoor Pashteen because the article has significantly changed as of now. The article is no longer similar to Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. And Manzoor Pashteen has got many times more in-depth coverage as of now, when compared to the coverage received a month ago. Khestwol (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article doesn't mention him even once. The Radio Free Europe article [24] mentions the demonstrations he has organized. [25] just has him quoted for the problems they are protesting. Does he get any coverage about him, or do they only mention him organizing the protest they are covering or quote the reasons he gave for them? DreamFocus04:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera published this article [26] ("Manzoor Pashteen: The voice of Pashtuns for many in Pakistan") about Manzoor Pashteen today. Also today, articles were published in several local and international media about him ([27], [28], [29], [30]). As of now, there should be no doubt about his notability because of the high popularity Pashteen received in a little time. Khestwol (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media is covering him enough and enough information about him for his own article. Most sources cited just mention his movement, not much about him at all so hard to sort through all of the results, but some do give him significant coverage such as Aljazeera. Also WP:ANYBIO2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field I think counts towards him also. DreamFocus15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep Marginal I guess, but it might just about satisfy WP:NBAND, their works and shows have received many reviews, e.g. Pitchfork (which rated it one of the best experimental albums of 2016 - [32] and one of the highest-rated glitch hop music - [33]), AllMusic, Resident Advisor, Odessey Online, and Fact Mag. Other coverage - [34], and mentioned in relation to "crypto-raves" [35][36]. Possibly also qualify under WP:BAND #5 for their releases with a notable indie label . Hzh (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage available is sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines, and the artists are clearly prominent in their genre. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - searching through the article sources, as well as an online search, reveals that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for music or anything else. London Hall (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I updated the article sources and also his biography. He is a known artist, who performs globally on the most attractive trance festivals. This article is now updated to be relevant enough for Wikipedia. Tolya (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: can we review these new sources please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!05:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Need to address this navigation problem with some thinking It says something that half of the talk page chatter is "what-the-heck is this for?" There is something to be said, maybe, for a timeline navigational system, but this structure of lists made up entirely of whatever someone bothered to put in the list (and I'm guessing that the vast majority of editors don't know these articles exist) is surely headed deep into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory if people put any serious effort into filling it in. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't we just revert the newly included months to make it less useless? Or is this a larger discussion about whether this should exist at all? (It's got a decent navigational use once you get past the "what the heck?") SportingFlyer (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split to List of months of the 20th century and List of months of the 21st century (1200 months in each century). But if you will delete the some months' links only with such criterias as "good article does not exist", then rename the article to "List of selected months and selected years chosen by some editors". 178.92.80.206 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list was a legitimate list to have before some redlinks were added, it's still a legitimate list afterwards. Whether months which don't yet have articles should be linked here or not is a content dispute that is not suitable for AfD. I can see the case for leaving them out, but even if they are included, the list hardly seems indiscriminate to me. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLNT. The linked articles are clearly related and therefore there should be either or both of a category and list for them. This is the list. The deletion rationale (that it now includes redlinks) in no way supports deletion - indeed, WP:DOAC (sub-section of the first link) explicitly states that the ability to contain redlinks is an advantage of a list over a category. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CLNT, but split into centuries per 178 to allow for previous centuries. A useful navigational tool. This does not violate any part of OL.Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the month articles per Legacypac. I've just had a look at what's in the linked lists. If they were even remotely complete, they'd be totally unmanageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pages I spot checked are indiscriminate collections of events that only matter in one part of the world or don't matter at all. For kicks I checked my birthday and found nothing happened that day. I do see a use for this master list - a nice guide to finding and deleting all the useless daughter month pages. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't really see the purpose of this page, but adding redlinks has not really changed anything and the nomination is a bit POINTY. SpinningSpark01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Notable for her role in the successful soap Kahe Diya Pardes. As with all other articles on Marathi-language pop culture, it has the problem that the English-language sources are terrible; however, the answer to this is a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. I'd also note that this seems to have been part of a mass-nomination of Marathi-language actresses with cookie-cutter rationales. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the sources.I also note that the above !votes seem to be a part of rapid-fire !voting with cookie-cutter rationales about the terribleness of English sources on Marathi pop culture, without providing a single source.~ Winged BladesGodric11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I don't speak Marathi either. I can establish from the English-language sources that she has had a major role in a very successful soap, which indicates notability. Targeting someone who has held notable roles because her work is in a language that is poorly covered in English is systemic bias in action and is inappropriate. I individually checked every one of your nominations, voted delete on two that actually seemed to be non-notable, and didn't vote on a couple of others that were arguable; unfortunately, you seem to have met this with a response just as cookie-cutter as your copied-and-pasted mass nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk)
Nah..You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. I was engaged in a cleanup drive of the articles creations by the article creator and thus, the mass-nominations.The article creator has self-admitted that he used to believe all actors/actresses are public figures and deserve a WP article, which is a fatal misunderstanding. If you go through his t/p and the last thread on mine, you will see 4 Indian wikipedians--me, FRadical, Tito and Spiff, (the latter two are long-standing sysops), have objected to his sense/understanding of notability and asked him to recheck the notability guidelines, bring creations to a halt and slow down.In that case, it might be prudential if you choose to bring the sources and debate me at the AFD, rather than guessing about existence of sources, in an era when coverage of Marathi issues is quite prominent in English dailies.~ Winged BladesGodric11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why I checked each one - and voted delete on some on which I agreed with your conclusion. However, if any of the specific people that I voted keep on had been in exactly the same roles in English in the US, UK or Australia, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can't speak to your view of "coverage of Marathi issues", but the glaring awfulness of all English-language coverage of Marathi-language pop culture has been a consistent and longstanding problem at AfC (across any number of topics within that area) and it hasn't panned out any differently here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about glaring awfulness but actors/actresses who have featured in multiple notable roles at the level of soaps/TV serials do not manage to retrieve even prominent-independent-coverage in local-language sources, at least in Bengal and South Indian scape.You are granting de-facto coverage to a class of people who almost always don't manage to secure it in Indian scapes.~ Winged BladesGodric13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the references, three references, one getting inked, one a photoshot, and one where she is getting married. There is no coverage outwith the inital branding and marketing, to get her notice. The lady is not an established actor. She is merely at beginning of her career, and is non notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep it has remained the subject of discussion in reliable sources. Currently, it is written in non-encyclopaedic tone, which needs to be emended per WP:ATD. samee talk16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using our googly friend but a search returned mostly promotional material and primary-related sources. Something that, in fact, makes a article on the subject even less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The only notable aspect of that text is the polemic tone (e.g. "Because of high profile relatives and a strong background people are unable to get possession of their plots and also they are not able to get their money back. EDEN Housing is now a notorious name in the market and people are not trusting this housing anymore"), all unsourced of course. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Clearly a notable actress from the available sources I could find, although sources (like many Indian topics) are difficult due to the English-language sources being of low quality. The mass deletion nomination of Indian actresses is concerning - what these actually need is just the attention of a Marathi speaker. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article (and further inquiries based on those sources) established that she had held a number of notable roles in Marathi-language mediums. I don't speak Marathi, so I can't do much beyond that. No one in Marathi-language pop culture is going to be able to meet the same standards for English-language sources as a US or UK actress - but (given obviously notable roles) they absolutely can by someone can actually read the language. The "gotcha" attempt at ignoring the language barrier is systemic bias in action. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged BladesGodric13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article completely lacks sources, in English or any other language, about the biography of the subject, from which we'd be able to gauge whether the notability criteria are met. Mentions-in-passing in newspaper columns about new movies hardly does it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Sources establish numerous notable roles in both films and television. It suffers from the across-the-board problem with English-language sources about Marathi-language pop culture (they're all dreadful), but this needs a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to confirm, using the sources already in the article and with a bit of added research, that she has held numerous notable roles in both films and television. I don't speak Marathi, so I'm unable to give the article the attention it needs. We don't delete articles on notable people just because the English-language coverage of it is of poor quality: this is systemic bias in action and is to be avoided. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged BladesGodric13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few additional sources to the article. She appears to satisfy WP:GNG for the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate wording thanAdded a few additional sources to the article would be:--I did a google search and dumped every GHit featuring her name, into the article with zero weighing of reliability, triviality and editorial independence.~ Winged BladesGodric07:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who has displayed an extremely poor understanding of systemic bias in his mass, copy-paste deletion nominations specifically targeting those underrepresented areas is hardly an authority on "valid concerns". The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess someone who has access to the sources and partially understands the language is clearly more acquainted with the scenario than someone who has self-declared his inability to read Marathi sources etc.~ Winged BladesGodric02:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A substantive analysis of the sources in question would be helpful here; more than "they're enough/not enough". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note to closing sysop - all IPs and uers that voted here, with the excemption of SlowManifesto have never edited here. I'd suggest paying no mind. hiàn18:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? Persian-language resources are not particularly useful in an English-language, we usually pair other-language sources with English-language sources. And the official website is virtually useless here. hiàn00:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the key passage: "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available". -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in either English or Persian. Refs #1, #3, #4, #5, are the personal website of the subject. Refs #2,#6, #7 (websavar.ir) link to a page that does not appear to contain his name. Ref #8 is an article about famous Western actors such as Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone. A blatant deceptive use of a ref. Ref #9 has no usable content. Ref #10 again does not contain his name. SpinningSpark02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the subject is an actor, but the article fails the terms of WP:NACTOR. Page visits shouldn't play a huge role in deletion discussions. hiàn18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laughably, page hits were only around 25/day until this AfD opened. Even the most obscure articles get that from bots and wikignomes. So even if page hits were relevant, they would be speaking for non-notable. SpinningSpark21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:GNG; sources mentioned in the article all appear to either be other Wikis or self-published. The claims in the article are either outrageous or fall well short of notability for creative individuals. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteper G5and as a hoax as this is nothing more than a greatly exaggerated attempt at promo, just like the dozens of other recreations under various names, including on FA Wiki. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 consensus in 2007. The AfD is worth reading, for the absurdity of the arguments for keeping the article; the non-admin close made no attempt to analyse which of the arguments were related to the notability: the main one was that the Genealogy Research Group of which he was cofounder was notable. was notable and important. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@DGG:, which guidelines are you nominating this article under? Will have to do an author and academic notability search. Great AfD for entertainment value, though. SportingFlyertalk02:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the titles of the 2 in the article are Extraordinary Healing: How the discoveries of Mirko Beljanski, the world's first green molecular biologist, can protect and restore your health. and The IP-6 with Inositol Question and Answer Book: Nature's Ultimate Anti-Cancer Pill. . DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did do what the nominator suggested and read over the 2007 debate that he finds so ludicrous. It was enough to convince me that this was, indeed, a recognized expert in the field of longevity research and therefore worthy of encyclopedic biography via the ACADEMIC SNG. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dr. Coles and his work was notable enough to be featured in Wired Magazine, Nov 2012 (see right),File:L. Steve Coles, Long Life Dissected, Wired 2012.jpgSteve Coles, Long Life Dissected, Wired 2012featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and spotlighted by the Smithsonian. Others in the field consider Dr. Coles to be notable, including Ray Kurzweil (Kurzweil on Coles) and the AMMG. He has authored over 149 scientific publications. --2001:4898:80E8:2:0:0:0:1E0 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While there are 4 keep !votes opposed to 5 delete !votes, apart from the nominator's rationale, the contentions of both the sides seem significantly valid. Summating these discussions, I don't see evidence supporting consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure)Lourdes19:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nineteen references from twelve different sources should be enough to establish the notability of the second in command of the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization and a Knight of St. Gregory. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I added a few more substantive sources. I think these, combined with his position and the cumulative effect of the lesser sources, is enough to establish notoriety.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mostly through this edit, with most of the information coming from the Our Sunday Visitor article and Kaufman's book. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like someone who had a prominent role as a lawyer in a small town. I don't see the notability myself, as the references for the opening line only have trivial mentions of him. Or like this book, which quotes him as a "leader" in the organisation: [40] Also I'm not familiar enough with the organisation to assume he would be presumptively notable for his role, and would be open to keeping him if more sources could be found as they relate to his role with the organisation, but I couldn't find any of them easily. SportingFlyertalk23:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Timothy Galvin is a fairly big fish in a small pond. There are so many small communities in the world that including entries like Mr. Galvin's would not only make Wikipedia unusable, but it would bankrupt Wikipedia as well due to the server cost. In addition, not enough notable and in-depth sources.Knox490 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see a lot of IDONTLIKEIT aND OTHERSTUFF in the deletion rationales. Fact is, this is the subject of multiple pieces of independently published coverage dealing with the subject in a substantial way — a GNG pass. We don't need to insert our own feelings about small town lawyers or whether a subject is "important enough" — we are done. Carrite (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have more discussion about the weight we can give to the sources in question, which isn't something most of the !votes have touched upon. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my opinion the sources are adequate to meet WP:GNG, the WMF budget would easily cover several billion articles, and this person is clearly notable for being the second in command of the world's largest Catholic fraternal organization rather than his work as a small town lawyer. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that one of the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia is the number of articles it can contain! When did that happen? -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It seemed like you were basing your viewpoint on the fact that Wikipedia can afford many more articles, which, of course, is not a criterion for inclusion. Still, we should indeed not have an article on everything in Wikipedia. And the reason is not the cost. :-) But if everything would be notable then nothing would be notable! -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done biography about a top Knights of Columbus leader. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Whoops, sorry, I didn't notice I was in on this one already. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the focus on the leadership of a religious organization is odd. Anything important related to the notable organization should be covered in its article, and this person does not seem notable outside his relationship to the organization. Sandstein 10:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Clear spam page. Maybe the org is notable (or maybe not), but this just has a bunch of promotional material — some even written in the first person. Almost all citations are to the org's own website. What media mentions exist are generally critical, contrary to the tone of the article. Much of the content is from single-purpose accounts. Vectro (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads like it was copied from a company document, I haven't checked for copyvio, but anyhow the refs are all primary or don't indicate notability. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Approved by geonames, and it shows up as a dot on some UN maps; but there's nothing there, and I've come across no significant non-map/clickbait info. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as it does not satisfy the relevant notability guidelines. I concur with the nominator, although I would fall short of calling it a directory listing. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Author with unclear notability. I searched Google, but only found a few passing mentions and 2-3 book reviews in involved or non-reliable sources (book sellers, forums, etc.). None of the sources covered biographical information in any detail. But I don't speak the language and may have overlooked something. Note: The original version was a blatant unsourced advertisement, likely written by a COI-editor - I have removed most of this content in a recent edit (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An archetypal example of poor self-made statistics we have bees struggling in Wikipedia in various places. Not only data is from different sources, it is from different years as well. If not "apples vs oranges", but definitely "tangerines vs. oranges". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know where 'self-made statistics' comes from, that implies someone sat down and made them up. As the lead section states, reliable statistics are difficult to obtain. 133 of 159 figures are from UNAIDS 2016 Sex Workers: Size Estimates, ie from the same source. UNAIDS compiled this documents from various sources and presumably would have only included from sources that they thought to be reliable. UNAIDS statistics are generally accepted by academics as a reliable source. The renaming statistics were taken from as reliable sources as could be found. 'No data' has been entered for countries when the only statistics available were from tabloid type sensational articles. John B123 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Edited to add 'Keep'. I did consider 'Speedy Keep' as per item 3 of WP:SKCRITJohn B123 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Self--made statistics comes from the persons who put together data from disparate sources. As for 133 from 159, I see 63 footnotes and 27 references, from years ranging between 2007 and 2016. You cannot put such data into a single ranking table. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 63 footnotes. If you take the time to look at the footnotes, you'll see some are used multiple times. One is used 33 times. As previously stated, the bulk of the statistics are taken from a single UNAIDS document. John B123 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which single document? The link is to a big website. Its presentation is in different form which does not attempt to compare the incomparable in a unified ranking. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The various graphs, tables and maps are loaded by ajax so there is no direct urls for any particular table. To see the relevant table, click on 'sex workers' on the left. An accordion will open and in that accordion click on 'Sex workers: Size estimate' and then along the top 'Data sheet' (and if anybody knows how to incorporate that in 'cite web' I'd be grateful) John B123 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentList of countries by number of prostitutes was split from Prostitution by country by consensus as part of a major revamp of the article. (That article was subsequently moved to Prostitution by region as part of the revamp). There are numerous List of countries by .... articles that use say the CIA Factbook. The CIA Factbook draws on multiple sources and uses the latest available information, although the 'latest information' may be from different years for different countries. I don't see that statistics compiled by UNAIDS are any less acceptable than those compiled by the CIA. John B123 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable data makes the list worthless. According to almost all serious analysis of the phenomenon of prostitution, the extent of illegal prostitution, even in countries where it is legal, is so significant that renders "official" stats worthless. Also, there is the issue of stirring through such a list needless and disruptive emotions, potentially spilling beyond Wikipedia. If we had reliable data, one could perhaps make a case for boldness, but not as things stand. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"stirring through such a list needless and disruptive emotions." Using that criteria we should delete a lot of articles on WP: rape, murder, terrorism etc. The list of article the could cause "disruptive emotions" to people is virtually endless. John B123 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example: One source cited in article gives 473,523 sex workers in Venezuela, while another one gives 120,000. Clearly 4x difference is something wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: I fully agree that "upsetting people" is not a criterion. But note that I qualified that remark with the point about lack of data. It's one thing to upset people with an article about, say, a gruesome crime, supported by reliable sources and hard data, and quite another to upset people with articles based on extremely unreliable factoids, like for example this sorry mess of an article. It's all based on flaky data; encyclopaedically unpardonable. A violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE at least. Sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with caveats. This is obviously valid as a split of material out of Prostitution by country. AFD is not the place to argue about splits/mergers of material. A re-merger proposal could be made at Talk:Prostitution by country instead, with notice given at the split-out article. Other editors are right to be suspicious about the statistics given, but that is a matter to be addressed by appropriate introduction and perhaps negative tagging at the article. An existing or new hatnote template, similar to Template:Expand list about incomplete lists, but instead mentioning difficulty of quantifying illegal activity, could/should be used at the top.
And IMO the lede should be very explicitly apologetic about the quality of statistics given, with [well-sourced, learned] explanation why, including that the number of unofficial sex workers is very difficult to know, and there should be explicit discussion [attributed to reliable sources] of difficulties of various approaches to estimation, such as the difficulty of census questions to ask about illegal activity, and the wide variance in "expert" opinions. Mentioning the specific example of 4x discrepancy between two versions of Venezeuela estimates would be very appropriate in the introduction. All that said, it is still valid to present the material (and it is okay to be split out of the parent article), although perhaps multiple estimates should be given for Venezuela and other countries, each supported by their different sources.
Also, note the parent article should be identified in the lede. Perhaps mention in a hatnote template somehow [which I have tried at adding]. This would help dispell disbelief/reaction such as present in this AFD.
Also, renaming/moving the article could improve the situation. "List of countries by ..." suggests it is about the countries, yet the number of prostitutes is very spurious in the big picture, is not a major characteristic of countries. Moving to a title more on-target, e.g. Statistics of prostitution by country would be provide more accurate emphasis of what the article is about. It would also welcome other statistics that might fit in, besides the one statistic currently provided (a single relatively current estimate for each country). For example it could allow for an extended discussion of historical statistics for one country as a case example of difficulty in measuring in this topic area. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The current version of list-article needs a better lede. It currently starts "Any figures for the number of prostitutes in a country is only ever an estimate", which [comes across as unprofessional, and does not inspire confidence. For one thing it is very vague and not sourced. Also the first sentence should state what the article is about, but this is very obviously] not a statement about what the article is. That kind of preface/apology is needed, but needs to be properly stated with reference(s) (and perhaps by explicit quoting) an academic/reliable source about the difficulty here. The current introduction is at fault for causing this AFD; it comes across as a weak apology to be followed by slapdash stuff. While in fact I believe that the stuff which follows is probably pretty well-considered, it does not come across that way. This is a matter for editing, not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC) --21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Specifically the article would come across better if it used one column for estimates from Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 2016 Country Factsheets, and added another column for other estimates (which would each be footnoted as to their source). The current version explicitly suggests it is a mishmash of estimates from various, incompatible sources, and fails to show which ones should be comparable (because they come from the hopefully-consistent UN source). --Doncram (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it remains that the single column of estimates includes a mishmash of sources. It is too burdensome upon reader to evaluate how many times one source is used vs another. I still think having just one column for the one major source would improve readability. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the change to use one generic reference, and losing specific links to specific sources (each separate country fact sheet, presumably) sort of decreases my confidence. Why not use one column devoted to the general UN source, and within that column provide specific references to the specific individual country fact sheets. Cutting out specific references makes it unduly difficult for editors/readers to see what is the actual source of each datum. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've split the statistics into 2 columns as per your previous suggestions, which I think does improve the table. The UNAIDS source is a summary sheet taken from the individual Country Factsheets, but it could just as easily link to the individual factsheets. Originally I included all the information from the factsheets, year, source etc, which seemed to enhance the article, but from the comments left above, seemed just to confuse the situation hence the removal. John B123 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sincerely, for that, which is quite an improvement IMO. However the generic source, http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/ provides not a single one of the statistics in the column, AFAICT, even if you click on the "Sex workers" tab and the 'Sex workers: Size estimate' sub tab. Using Chrome, I see no "top 'Data sheet' which was suggested above. So I figure the individual country statistics must come from individual country fact sheets, accessible one way or another, quite likely prepared in different years (which is okay by me, but could you clarify about this, in this AFD discussion, about whether they are from different years?) which should be specifically sourced. This has moved along substantially, IMO, but it is still arguable that the quality of sourcing renders the article quality inadequate for inclusion in Wikipedia (while I do vote "Keep" myself). On the other hand, even offline dead-tree sources are acceptable for use, even if the specific fact sheets are not available online, so some kind of specific reference should be able to be created for each of the individual numbers. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Also using Chrome I get options of 'Map', 'Data Sheet', 'Graphs', 'Compare', 'Factsheets' and 'Atlas' along the top. As you point out, it's probably less confusing to link to the individual factsheets. John B123 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, trying again, now I can get to that. I will try editing the reference in article to explain about how to get to the actual numbers under a "Data Sheet" tab. Are there individual factsheets available somewhere. For any country, can you provide a link? --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Okay, did that. It remains that the current article reference refers to multiple fact sheets as if there are separate country fact sheets, yet links to a single source which (with additional instructions) gets you to a single Data Sheet presumably put together by some U.N. person who deemed the numbers to be acceptably comparable. Note that for a different data item, "Number of people living with HIV", there are number columns for 2014, 2015, 2016, with point estimate plus confidence interval for each country. For "Sex workers" there currently is just one 2016 column, with just a point estimate for each column. Seems to me like there is one source, not multiple sources. Revising the presentation (the footnote and possibly the article lede) to allude to a single source (as opposed to suggesting this is a compilation by a Wikipedia editor from various sources) would improve credibility. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've changed the wording to refer to "Sex Workers: Size Estimates" rather than Country Factsheets. I agree the lead section could be improved John B123 (talk)
Keep There seems to be considerable enthusiasm for improving this article, and to delete it before these options have all been explored would be premature. There is of course some merit in the argument that the bald presentation of these statistics could be confusing to some readers. The suggestion to re-title the article as Prostitution statistics by country or similar could instead allow it to focus on the issue of the problems associated with prostitution statistics. We could find sources that discuss the difficulty of research in this area of social science, the paucity of figures available, and the partisan nature of some of the research. Such an approach would highlight those problems better than the current lead does. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was a good idea to reformat the article away from the pseudoranking form. Each entry in "other sources must be supplied with the year when the data was taken. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The list is an impossible one as it is overly subjective. Conflicts are described differently by different schools of thought or parties. It does further lack sources and inline citations. Lappspira (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly as written. Depending on the definition of nationalism you use, practically every conflict in modern history would have at least an element of nationalism in it. Narrowing the definition would come uncomfortably close to OR for my liking. BigHaz - Schreit mich an06:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is just silly. Europe only had two nationalist conflicts? Has the author never heard of Napoleon? I see Ireland splitting is included, but what about Italian reunification? Really, it is impossible to define nationalism in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. If we accept the existence of such a list in Wikipedia, then that'd presume that the list of wars that were not "nationalistic" includes all the rest. Which would be utterly absurd. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Keeping this list article wouldn't make much sense. It would include nearly (if not all) wars in the history of man kind. That is better suited for a category than a standalone article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
