Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 2

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I must reduce the weight given to views expressed in favour of the sources that, in my judgment, fundamentally misunderstand the tests that we apply to reliable sources and what they prove by way of subject notability. That said and done, the consensus in this discussion was plainly that this article – whilst containing a great number of sources (probably intentionally to excess) – nevertheless fails to establish notability of the IPI. (As always, this is without prejudice to any editor working up a compliant draft – that is substantively different to the form discussed here – and reintroducing to mainspace.) AGK ■ 21:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Policy Institute

Illinois Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Utter corporate spam and entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. For the most part, any references I look at fail the criteria for establishing notability being a mishmash of quotations from connected sources or articles that comment on one of their announcements. The article is so bad that WP:TNT applies. There is also a strong smell that the article may have been created by an editor with an undisclosed COI. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. [Edit: Also, fails WP:NPOV] HighKing++ 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are news articles that are in-depth about the subject, are used in the article as citations, are intellectually independent of the subject, and therefore this helps meeting WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - WP:GNG.
The user who has nominated this page for deletion is currently going around following me around and deleting about 5 of my last pages I created, all of which are about organizations. Fortunately, this page is more defendable because it has at least two in-depth sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. I don’t know why he’s picking me to follow around. Perhaps clarification?
- Illinois Times - https://illinoistimes.com/article-7520-conservative-think-tank-to-illinois:-turn-right.html
- State-Journal Register: http://www.sj-r.com/x450317297/Bernard-Schoenburg-Illinois-Policy-Institute-got-half-million-from-Rauner
- Chicago Tribune (this is somewhat in-depth): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-cartoon-rauner-porter-0827-20170825-story.html
Plus, this article has been up for a decade; since 2008. Why now? Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response I nominated it because I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article is also entirely promotional (and unbalanced) and fails WP:SPIP and WP:NPOV.
  • This article from the Illinois Times comes closest and starts well enough but on a closer reading it is clear it is not intellectually independent. For example, all of the photographs were provided by IPI and the article prints quotations verbatim without providing any intellectually independent analysis. This is probably the best source I could find but I having read it in detail, I was unconvinced and in any case, two sources are required to establish notability. As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND, If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • This SJR reference is about a story where Bruce Rauner donated to the IPI. The IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and that fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The Chicago Tribune article is also a story mainly featuring Rauner. Like the previous article, the IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and fails WP:ORGIND.
In my opinion, it is very notable that the article has not been written with a Neutral Point of View. It is notable that in all three of the references you produced above, most are less-than-complimentary on some of IPI's activities, yet no "controversial" content is contained in the article. Contrast that with the John Simmons (attorney) article you created (which I've also nominated for deletion), most of which is taken up with a "Controversies" section. And seeing as how much you like to bold sentences, let me bold this: Wikipedia isn't here for you to grind personal axes or promote your political point of view. This article also contains over-the-top sourcing with 84 references, most of which are mentions-in-passing and do not support the text in the article. For example, the article states: The Institute has been described as an independent government watchdog, conservative, libertarian, free-market, and nonpartisan ... but fails to disclose that most of those descriptions originate from the IPI itself, yet the article attempts to hoodwink readers into thinking otherwise. HighKing++ 16:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back: In response to the gentleman, I don't have any "axe to grind". I'm conservative and that's not a crime on Wikipedia, so I like to work on articles that interest me, and those tend to be of conservative minded organizations, people, principles, etc. I don't "promote my political point of view." I take text from a published source, summarize it in my own words then post it to a Wikipedia article I like. The Simmons article has nothing to do with this article. The arguments here should be on the merit of Illinois Policy Institute, not the perception (of one of tens of thousands of active users) of misbehavior on another article of a person who happened to have edited both articles. As for your inkling that the person who created it has a COI, you'll have to scroll back to 2008 (a decade ago) when the article was created and then investigate from there. I wasn't even on Wikipedia that long ago. Best of luck! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Do not be rude to me. I'm not being rude to you. Your comment about "How much you like to bold sentences" was uncalled for. I bolded it to draw eyes to it, not to yell. Yours was just yelling and mockery. Grow up. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two more articles -- these two are directly focused on the IPI and make clear its significance in Illinois, and the first one explicitly says the organizations has become much more influential since 2007: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nope. We are not debating whether the IPI exists - it obviously does - but whether it is notable enough, based on intellectually independent sources that have published in-depth information on the company. Most of those sources fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Even assuming they are reliable sources (not even going to debate whether the "NPR Illinois" is a reliable source) - most of those articles simply mention the IPI in passing (failing WP:CORPDEPTH - for example, the US News reference, etc). The Chicago Sun Times reference is a piece on John Tillman. Contrary to 1990'sguy's assertion, that article does not explicitly say that the organization has become more influential since 2007 but rather that the "organization steadily expanded its work and influence" since 2007. Not the same thing at all. HighKing++ 17:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed my point, as I never sought to prove that the IPI exists. It meets GNG, as there are many sources that discuss the organization and its influence in Illinois politics. The Sun Times article is about the IPI -- it discusses Tillman's work as president of the IPI. Besides, you missed this in the IPI article: "Well before John Tillman began running the Illinois Policy Institute a decade ago, the nonprofit think tank was calling for major reforms to state government, especially its finances. But few in Springfield — or elsewhere in Illinois — paid attention. That changed when Tillman relaunched the institute in 2007. ......" The sources I have provided clearly show the organization is notable. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to discuss 1990'sguy's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The organization exists but that's not enough to prove notability. Lacks the significant coverage of the organization to meet WP:GNG. 1990sguy sources are about the governor appointing people connected to the IPI to positions on his staff. That seems like passing mentions and WP:NOTINHERITED to me.Sandals1 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources provided by 90sguy show the Illinois Policy Institute is notable (meets GNG), and is in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in.Sdmarathe (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdmarathe: Read WP:NORG about what "in depth coverage" is. For example, the article in the Chicago Sun-Times is not about the IPI, it is about John Tillman, the IPI has only four sentences. Also, the Illinois Policy Institute is not part of the government, it is an NGO, so it cannot be "in the highest levels of government". --Bejnar (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you on the Chicago Sun-Times article, and he is referring to all the people in the state government who were hired from IPI. For instance Chicago Business in 2017 said"These guys" are the newcomers in the governor's administration, almost all of them from the Illinois Policy Institute, a strongly opinionated libertarian think tank that has been given control of at least the public aspects of Rauner's administration in recent days and in some ways maybe the governor himself. -Obsidi (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. The article is referring to the people who were hired from the IPI and only has a one-line description of the IPI itself. That fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is why we say that notability isn't inherited. HighKing++ 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my opinion, that article itself isn't enough evidence of WP:Notability (I have other reasons for my support). But I was just trying to explain the statement that they are "in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in." Is quite accurate, their people work there and they have substantial influence as just about all the RS agree (although I guess there has been a bit of a falling out earlier this year). -Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are your other reasons for support? This is about whether the references meet the criteria for establishing notability - any other reasons should be disclosed. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I think this article in the Illinois Times and this article in the Chicago Sun Times some of the coverage of the organization that meets WP:ORG. This is significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage in which any similar org should easily qualify. To answer Michael Powerhouse's question of why now after this article has been up for a decade, I think that is fairly clear. They just won the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME four months ago and while one would think that would make them even more notable, it also made a lot of people angry at them. -Obsidi (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Eh ... as the nom, I think if you take a look at my edit history, first I'm not from the US, second I've no particular interest in US politics, third I've never commented on anything related to the IPI previously, fourth and finally it's quite a scurrilous remark to make and very wide of the mark. On the other hand, when I look at your contributions.... HighKing++ 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll strike the comment. -Obsidi (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I commented on your first source above - in my opinion at the time I said it was a weak source that probably failed WP:ORGIND but having read it a couple of times since, I agree with you that it meets the criteria in NCORP. The second reference though, from the Chicago Sun Times, is also a weak source but it has no in-depth coverage of the IPI. It talks about how the finances of "Project Six" is linked to the IPI but the mentions of the IPI do not meet the criteria for in-depth coverage. I would also ask you to comment on the lack of NPOV in the current article. It is noteworthy that some of the closest sources that meet the criteria for notability have less-than-complimentary things to say about the IPI and yet the article itself is promotional and glowing with praise. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm convinced that this article meets WP:N based on the sources added here. They demonstrate that the subject is notable and influential enough to have it's own article. I have seen some other political articles kept with worse sourcing (this maybe deemed as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but still true). GenuineArt (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones in particular do you believe meet the criteria for demonstrating notability. Note that this isn't a !vote counting exercise. Post a link or two below. So far, we've yet to identify (the minimum of) two references that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is really badly source-bombed. It appears to fail WP:NCORP - I've only looked at sources which appear to include the organisation in the article title, so I may have missed a few, since a cursory glance of the other sources doesn't suggest anything approaching notability, they're all on other topics or in some cases WP:PRIMARY. I've also looked at the sources above and agree with HighKing. Also fails WP:PROMO, and even if we somehow were to keep this, it almost certainly needs WP:TNT. SportingFlyer talk 12:23, 9 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataRobot

DataRobot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Straight up WP:ARTSPAM with little coverage, mostly WP:MILL and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 3 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fing

Fing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY. One of the article's sources is dead and the other two include a blog and a promotional website. Also, no other sources establishing notability could be found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Link referenced as broken has been fixed. More references establishing notability are forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Black (actor)

Tony Black (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only attribution is to IMDb. The only claims to fame seem to be 5 minor credits as a child actor and being the brother of a more prolific child actor. CallyMc (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Did Something Bad

I Did Something Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content based on the album review. It hasn't entered any official chart. Non-notable per WP:NSONGS. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider Bubbling Under Hot 100 and the NZ version of Bubbling Under as official charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm willing to improve this article. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 00:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the article states, she’s going to perform the song at the American Music Awards next week. If the song doesn’t meet the notability now, it certainly will by the end of this AFD, with a live performance of that caliber. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to the Vox and Billboard links FenixFeather provided (I don't know what to say about "Elite Daily" though Time just has flimsy detail), there's a citation from Elle exclusively focusing on this track thoroughly as well as a detailed piece from "The Pop Song Professor" (though I'm not sure how legit "The Pop Song Professor" is). When these aren't just something taken from album reviews, we have sufficient independent coverage from reputable publications too meet WP:NSONGS, which requires of being significantly covered in multiple credible sources that aren't album reviews or things closely affiliated with artist (i.e. one's own commentary on their work or something from their songwriters, label, producers, etc. as that would be just self-promotion). Charts (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 8 October 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 keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasmas asustados

Fantasmas asustados (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Blitzcream (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:17, 3 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Weinstein (ice hockey)

Steven Weinstein (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails both the GNG and NHOCKEY. Has played 9 games in the AHL which is not close to showing notability. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Playing in the Maccabiah Games does not show automatic notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100 professional games used to qualify for notability, but the NHOCKEY guidelines have since changed. Player clearly does not meet them now. Teemu08 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cissy Jones

Cissy Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR (at least with respect to WP:V). I can find only interviews and passing mentions. This article is essentially an IMDb list. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 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 redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon F. Child

Sheldon F. Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, fleeting passing mentions, quotations and name checks. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep General Authority Seventies are significant leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A search of the books link alone will show dozens of quotes from him, showing he is widely looked to by many writers as an authority on religious subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. Quotations from a subject do not establish notability; they are primary sources in the most literal sense of the term, directly from the subject. North America1000 21:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 October 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 keep. WP:SNOW Keep applies. Overwhelming Keep consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 01:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gavin

Francis Gavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of this page and wish to have it deleted based on the grounds that I am a non-notable, private person who does not meet the standard of Wikipedia's Notability policy. Awsxde (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your statement for several reasons. First, by publishing books he is no longer a "non-public" or "low profile" individual. Second, I think he is "clearly and without question notable." Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 8 October 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Henley (Birmingham mayor)

Robert Henley (Birmingham mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this individual meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. One of the two sources is another wiki. Marquardtika (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if somebody can actually show some solid sources before closure, delete otherwise. Birmingham is certainly a large enough city that a substantive and properly sourced article about a mayor would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2, but the role is not so "inherently" notable that we would need to keep a short, badly sourced stub which only just barely goes any further than stating that he existed. And while it is true that it's entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a person who actually passes our notability criteria, the saving play in a case like that is not simply presuming that better sources probably exist, but showing hard proof that better sources do exist (and I can't be the angel of salvation here, as I only have access to Canadian sourcing in his era, not the American kind where he might actually have some coverage.) So this needs to go if it doesn't see improvement, and then can certainly be recreated again in the future if somebody actually puts in the effort to write and source something considerably better than this — but as it stands, nothing about him is so "inherently" notable that it would be necessary to keep it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a couple sources from newspapers.com; Bearcat, does that look good to you? The 1910 article has a few more details that can be used if someone wants to clean up the page a bit more. I did find sources calling him a major. Given governor Lindsey's character, I supposed Henley may have been a Confederate officer, but that is far from certain. He was 18 when the Civil War broke out, 22 when it ended, pretty young to be a major (of course, not too young by any means in a war noted in its use of child soldiers). He may have been a major in another body, such as a state or local militia. He may have also received the honorific for some other reason (I don't know about major, but the title captain was given to boat pilots and other military-derived titles to people in fraternal organizations). Smmurphy(Talk) 14:22, 5 October 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 keep. Consensus seems to indicate that the Heymann standard comes into effect here. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Adler

Isaac Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this individual meets WP:NPOL, or more broadly, WP:GNG. It kind of reads like an obituary, but it's not clear where the encyclopedic value is. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep a Newspapers.com search brought up over 2,000 mentions in New York State so there's a possible WP:NEXIST, but mayors don't necessarily pass WP:NPOL without significant coverage. I don't have access to the search results - that being said, the article is currently only sourced to genealogy websites, which don't count toward notability. SportingFlyer talk 02:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and improve. Coverage of his political role moving Rochester (a major city in his era) to a city manager system exists in books and newspapers. Also scholarly coverage, such as: "Rochester's city manager campaign,"Story, Stephen B., National municipal review, ISSN:0190-3799, 04/1926, Volume: 15 Issue: 4 Page: 208-211. Clearly a significant Progressive Era civic figure in Rochester. Scion of Adler Rochester clothes, a men's ready-made company. Rochester was a center of the ready made clothing industry c. 1900. Article just needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: Would you mind terribly finding a couple of non-routine feature newspaper articles on him and posting them here? I know we've had our disagreements at AfD, but my delete vote was based entirely on the current sourcing of the article and a difficulty of finding good sources quickly. I'm prepared to change to keep and would improve the article a little bit if a couple good feature articles/WP:SIGCOV can be found. SportingFlyer talk 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody know whether/where to find archives of the Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester Times-Union, and whatever other papers covered Rochester in the 20's? I'm sure they ran such articles. Meanwhile, I expanded and sourced his role in moving Rochester to a city manager system to a 1961 history of Rochester (reprinted in 1999,) and 1926 articles in the National Municipal Review, and the American Political Science Review. Partisan academic journals are nothing new, both of these were stridently "progressive" journals in the 1920s, extremely pro-city manager (all eras have hot button issues that sound arcane a century later.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 3 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List Of The Most Followed Nigerian Stars On Instagram

List Of The Most Followed Nigerian Stars On Instagram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

listicle, fancruft, entirely supported by OR. Disambiguating "most followed" accounts by nationality seems a bit silly and potentially a BLP issue similar to categorizing people by nationality/race/ethnicity/religion. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 2 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked Facebook pages

List of most-liked Facebook pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically an unfinished listicle that will be ever-changing and is essentially copied from the sources. Also WP:LISTN. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Only created this afternoon so needs time for creator to add more content. Matt14451 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify should not be used for content that is not and will not ever be encyclopedic, as is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you forgot one! WP:NOR!Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it's sourced, I presumed it wasn't OR, but if you say so. SpinningSpark 19:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but i didn't know twitter follower list was worthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, If twitter allowed why not FB? perhaps many people do search these most followers kind of things so maybe kept.. Adamstraw99 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, List of most-followed Twitter accounts is not "worthy enough to be included". If it came up at AfD, I would vote for deletion of that one as well. SpinningSpark 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, we need to keep this article since the list of most subscribed youtube channels and most followed Instagram accounts are present. Facebook doesn't have much change when considering from user point of view.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Akhiljaxxn. If there can be articles for twitter, Instagram , YouTube followers and subscribers, then why not for the largest social media site. Knightrises10 (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are all literally "other stuff" arguments. Perhaps we should delete those, too. Wikipedia isn't for listicles and the dynamic nature of these make it relatively unencyclopedic as well as subject to WP:OR. In particular, this article isn't even a list! Praxidicae (talk) 10:36, 4 October 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 keep. Given evidence that there is not a copyvio, and agreement that notability has been met, the other issues wouldn't impinge on this article's existence and thus is a Keep. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schaal

Stefan Schaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyright violation,Delete immediately it contains text copied verbatim from https://stefan-schaal.net Janrpeters (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AfD is the wrong venue for copyright violations. But more importantly, the article has been extensively edited by Sschaal1 and Sschaal2, now blocked for sockpuppetry. If there has been any copying, I think we can safely infer that the owner of the copyrighted material has, by editing the material into the article here, granted permission for it to be used here. The attempts to delete the article began at more or less the same time as Sschaal was blocked from editing the article and an IP editor added a reference to Der Spiegel alleging financial improprieties on the part of Schaal; that timing seems unlikely to be a coincidence. If the subject of the article was happy to have a self-edited puff piece about him here, he has no basis for complaint when the article becomes balanced with properly sourced but negative information. Given the pattern of edits, it may be worth contacting Jan Peters offline to verify that the edits made here under his name are really his. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three Six Zero

Three Six Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paid advertorial for a non-notable company. There's a carpet-bomb of references, but after I examined every one, all I found was everyday coverage of routine business announcements and/or passing mentions in industry publications. Not the in-depth coverage required of WP:NCORP. In particular, the industry-only coverage fails WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I opened up six of the refs at random, the return was 2 x 404, 1 x press release, 3 x no mention. The article reads as promotional and I concur with the nom. Szzuk (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:14, 2 October 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 keep. The gist of the discussion is the tension between our propensity to keep secondary schools because we always do that (i.e. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and the desire to hold private schools to the higher standard of WP:NCORP. There is some thought here that the distinction between public and private schools may represent an ethnocentric view of things which isn't valid in Asia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Language & Business Centre

International Language & Business Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously kept because it exists, this company providing educational services does not meet the requires of WP:NCORP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An independent school organisation that provides mainstream education at all levels including GCE O-level and university entrance as stated on its its website. Thus it is a high school. --Phyo WP (message) 04:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Myanmar Times press. That strong one!! clearly seen notable. EpcMyanmar (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • NCORP requires multiple reliable totally independent secondary sources that discuss the company in detail, at least one of which must be either a widely circulated publication such as a book or national level magazine or from a geographically separate location. You've shown one source that discusses one event from a local source. How does that meet NCORP, EpcMyanmar? John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Research does not support enough third party coverage, most search results are directories/lists or press releases. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: ILBC school is the name of private high school with many campus in major cities with significant coverage in news. This article typically meets secondary school notability. It is not the name of parent company so we should not consider according to WP:NCORP. [6] [7] [8] [9] The English language sources indicate notability as a secondary school, not as a company that owns schools. However, I am concerned about possible copyright problem. --Phyo WP (message) 04:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no. Whereas the individual schools might be notable, the company that owns them does not garner notability from that (see WP:INHERIT). A manufacturer does not become notable simply for making notable products. A real estate investment company does not become notable for owning notable properties. And references about schools that this company owns do not speak to the notability of the company. Someone can and should write articles about the individual schools and those topics would likely be notable. The company that owns them, no. John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Both primary (website [10], woven badge in school uniform [11] [12] and school buildings [13]) and secondary sources [14] [15] [16] [17] clearly indicated that ILBC is the name of school with many campus. It is very clear that ILBC is not the name of its parent company. This article is about a high school with many campus. --Phyo WP (message) 09:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that it is not very relevant whether it a multi-campus school or a regional educational supplier. Either way I would have nominated it for deletion because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes it clear that schools are not notable unless they either are shown to be a place meeting WP:NGEO or there is reasonable evidence to meet WP:ORGCRITE, which this organisation does not. I think there is a case to be made that state schools and accredited higher education institutions have a certain presumption of notability, this is neither and thus doesn't. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schools are a rather unique topic and that leads to confusing notability guidelines. What makes individual schools notable is usually the organization that occupies the unique building in the unique community it is in. Hence, its notability is tied indellably to the community as a highly important social organization. Here on Wikipedia, if a school moves to a different location in the same general area, we simply address that in the article copy, as the local institution is what is notable, not the building. For public school districts, they are assumed notable because they occupy a specific place on the map, and are highly likely to have extensive media coverage due to the fact they levy taxes. The closest analogy to a private corporation that owns schools is the public school district, but they are neither constrained to a set physical boundry nor do they levy taxes. The notability assumptions about school districts simply do not apply to corporations that own schools. Again, I want to emphasize that in no way am I saying that each individual school is not notable. Indeed I'd go so far as to say they likely are, and at least one of the secondary sources you proffered would be nearly sufficient to show one of the individual schools meets the notability requirements for schools (the one with the traffic issues). John from Idegon (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the status of the school is not apparent in the current article, but checking its website it offers education to the secondary level, with established international standards,. The consensus has been disputed, but in practice we have almost always kept such schools. The basic rationale , is that it is easier to do this than to debate each one. There might be a point even in debating each one, if it gave rational results, but experience has shown we don't do much better than chance, because the result depends not on the merits or the references, but on who happens to appear at the discussion. As these articles are harmless, we'd do better to simply keep them and deal with the real problems . It's time we thought about what we do here, and realize that the method of consensus discussions at afd cannot deal adequately with this sort of situation. It can deal with getting rid of junk, and keeping articles objected to on the grounds of prejudice; it can deal with trying to work with the nuances of BLP and NCORP in instances important enough to get wide participation. But where there are a small number of determined people on each side, it's just a matter of chance what turns out to be the ratio. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per DGG. A second look at the sources, cited and not, shows a clear picture of this Centre's notability. Moving behind the scenes and under more visible events, this entity should not be ignored here. Den... (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. In Asia it is normal for companies to own groups of schools and these are broadly equivalent of US school districts that are considered notable and with 26 schools this is a big group. Just Chilling (talk) 20:02, 10 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Thompson (Mormon)

Barbara Thompson (Mormon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is no default notability for Relief Society leaders whatsoever, and no guideline page states such. Sorry, but the personal, made-up notability standards stated above are not aligned with actual notability on Wikipedia at all. Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in an organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. North America1000 01:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 15:49, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Docimo

Michael Docimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wrestler. Clearly a vanity piece. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst wrestling for a "big name promotion", clearly make notablity easier, it's not a prerequisit for an article on the wrestler. There are many bios, including GAs that have never worked for a "Big promotion", and there are wrestlers that work for the WWE, that do not meet notability criteria. This one should be deleted simply due to it's lack of coverage Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 October 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 Not notable, move to sandbox.. There is a consensus here that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no objection to moving the page to Govvy’s sandbox so I will move it there. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reo Griffiths

Reo Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I don't mind it being moved into my sandbox as I do work on Tottenham related footballers there. Govvy (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 2 October 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 delete. WP:SNOW came early this year. SoWhy 08:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moore Jr

Martin Moore Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was written clearly as an Autobiography. The only claim of being notable is for being a photographer and filmmaker for a Koss Corporation. This individual does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly passing mentions about where he has performed. There are a few references that are more than that but I wouldn't say that is enough for the individual to meet the notable guidelines. It looks more like this individual is trying to become famous by have a Wikipedia article, instead of being famous enough to have a Wikipedia article.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete Sources are of notable importance more specifically ones from new outlets such as OnMilwaukee, NBC, Shepherd Express, 88.9WMSE, 102.1FM, Light The Hoan as well as the podcasts. Individual is not Beyonce but this passes and many of the sources are of notable importance to notable events. (reactions) 11:20, 2 October 2018

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) .— JasonBillings (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs). Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user is a possible sock of the creator of this article. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. Please only make one bolded comment. shoy (reactions) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strip out the blogs and puffery, and there's nothing there; no criticism, no commentary, and those few sources that do qualify as reliable sources in general are just passing mentions. There are sources to demonstrate that he exists; there's nothing as it stands to indicate that he's significant in Wikipedia's terms. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not find relevance for the topic as perWP:GNG and the source do not seem to be credibleVinodbasker (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what G5 means. The G5 deletion criterion means we can (not "must") delete pages which a banned user created after their ban; it definitely does not mean we engage in damnatio memoriae and wipe that user's contributions from before they were blocked. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 3 October 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 delete. While the argument to keep has basis in policy, it has insufficient support. I would be happy to refund this to the userspace of anyone who wishes to develop this towards a merger. Vanamonde (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randhir Verma Under-19 cricket Championship

Randhir Verma Under-19 cricket Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, local youth-level tournament. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NCRIC Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIN as of now does not cover U19 cricket. It is being discussed in talkpage. U19 cricket is covered in Indian media, like Baseball is covered in US Category:Youth_baseball. Popularity of a sport may vary among different countries. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, open a discussion at WP:CRIN, make a persuasive case, win the argument, and get the guideline changed.
Until that happens, this article fails NCRIN. End of. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are judged by existing policies such as WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS whether we want them or not is immaterial.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't want them because they're not notable as per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. That should have been really obvious from my previous comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. An open discussion is not WP:POLICY, and is no reason to keep an article which fails to pass any notability guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 8 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Carr (actor)

David Carr (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this article is being tested. Let the community decide if this person is worthy of his own article. TheEditster (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:09, 2 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Erra

Giancarlo Erra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any evidence that this musician is notable apart from the band, Nosound. A redirect to the band was reverted with the comment "A new major project under his own name, unrelated with the band, is to be announced in a few weeks." The article has a long history of COI editing and promotional contributions, and I'd like input from the community as to whether this satisfies WP:NMUSICIAN. Bradv 15:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this page to bring it more in line with wikipedia standards. I am not a regular contributor, but I did setup a lot of the Nosound discography and album pages. I am familiar with Giancarlo's work, but need time to read and understand why the page is up for deletion and what the requirements are to make it more valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougkost (talk • contribs) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:43, 2 October 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 redirect to Civic agriculture. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 Talk Work 21:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems

Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. I restored maintenance tags after they were removed but subsequent searches did not yield any reliable sources that might have demonstrated notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 03:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a charity with a handful of staff, it has worthy aims but the refs in the article are 1 primary and 2 obituaries about Mr Lyson (presumably the founder), my google searches not supporting notability. Szzuk (talk) 11:31, 2 October 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 delete. As the article (still) contains no sources and is contested, WP:V mandates its deletion. The entire content was "Ramlah is the name of a settlement in Fujairah." The coordinates given were 25°21′42″N 56°2′37″E. Sandstein 21:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlah, Fujairah

Ramlah, Fujairah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Pin points to location near Al Manama, local mosque is named in Arabic 'Suburb of Hanieh'. So not Ramlah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's a populated place on an official government map leads me to believe that WP:NEXIST is likely satisfied, even though I'm having a difficult time coming up with English sources. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the map and potential other sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I have argued before, this is a type of article that WP needs to stay relevant to its increasingly broad readership. Many of the none English-language sources are reliable and independent. In sum, they show this settlement's notability. Den... (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What non-English sources? Name one. This is a mad stub, unsourced and of no value. In fact, it's just plain misleading. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a stretch to say this crossroads is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GEOLAND, which says, If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. That seems to fit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Fante

Sophie Fante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no references, may fail WP:GNG and WP:WHO. Sheldybett (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 5 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn B. Arnold

Mervyn B. Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:27, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gözde Dal

Gözde Dal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fulfill criteria of WP:SPORTBASIC as a notable sportsperson. The only quoted references are statistics aggregators which are not sufficient to lend notability. An online search also shows that person is only covered in routine game reports and team listings. —Madrenergictalk 08:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 2 October 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 redirect to Mick Softley. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capital (album)

Capital (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability and no sources. A quick search does not bring up any WP:RS. Lopifalko (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk)
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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Megugorac

Dick Megugorac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is cited to one source which is of unclear reliability. Cannot find significant RS coverage. Catrìona (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Can't find RS coverage" Have you looked at Hot Rod or Car Craft or Street Rodder or Rod & Custom? Magoo has only been around 50yr in the business. Honestly, I really hate this ignorant crap, just delete anything you can't immediately find online. Next you'll say he's not notable because there's no website dedicated to his life. Did you bother to look at any of the external links, either? I suppose the HRM website doesn't qualify as RS, either, huh? And the fact you never heard of Goodguys means they can't be trusted, even tho they've only been hosting shows for more then 20yr... Sheesh. And, of course, somebody who built an AMBR-winning car & got national magazine coverage for his whole career can't possibly be notable, just bacause you never heard of him, right? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:09, 12:14 & 13:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add some of those sources? 50 year coverage in Hot Rod is hard to deal with these days (one of several topics) because it doesn't make a visible web footprint. If you've still got the paper trail, then you're in a much better place to fix this than most other editors will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Could you add some of those sources?" I don't have access to HRM or CC going back that far, or I'd have used them as sources & we wouldn't be discussing it. Not even my local library goes back really far... Even the HR website was no help (& I'm not helped, either, by an old PC that can't even read the page anymore, which is why I used it as an EL & not a cite...) If you've got a bigger-city library, you might be able to use their search function to find issues featuring Magoo, then request them for research. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's only two sources referenced in the article, and having only looked at the sources in the article, but I can't verify the reliability of the good-guys obituary, and none of the external links are very helpful. A web search brought up mentions, but I couldn't find any other sources. His newspaper obituary on Legacy.com is run of the mill. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:41, 2 October 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 delete. Sandstein 21:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilominx

Kilominx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Puzzle which has not received significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. With a few secondary references added, this article will be as valid as any other. I've added two more references this morning from the Twisty Puzzles Museum; if you find more please feel free to add them. Skewb? (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skewb? . WizardKing 00:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is very bad. twistypuzzles website also has a shop selling similar products, so it's a clear COI. ruwix.com is a wiki, so a self-publisher site it's not reliable. And then there's what effectively looks like someone's personal Web 1.0 page from the 90s. No, those sources don't cut it by any stretch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The twistypuzzles.com shop is operated separately from the museum. Saying it's not a reliable source because it also includes a shop is like saying a music group's official website is not a reliable source for its article, just because it has a merch store. With ruwix.com I admit I have to agree. Jaap's is a perfectly fine source if you ignore the poor quality of the page. Skewb? (talk) 13:18, 2 October 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 keep. Consensus is that the topic meets NPROF, although the view is certainly not unanimous. This transcends the ONEEVENT concerns held by several. The Washington Post opinion piece is just that, and not canvassing, and no weight regarding keeping or deleting was given to it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Strumia


Alessandro Strumia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. The article consist solely of description of the recent controversy, which is in itself minor and probably not worth keeping on Wikipedia Openlydialectic (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I boldly copied the well sourced info about the Cern controversy and created a Wikinews story: https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Cern_scientist_suspended_after_controversial_presentation Copyediting welcome, I don't have much experience wirh Wikinews! Gray62 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this hasn't been a good idea. License compatibility issues prevent the use of Wikipedia content for Wikinews. Can you imagine the idiocy? Wikinews is doomed, sadly. Gray62 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gray62: Did you attribute it to this article? I wouldn't have thought much more was needed. In any case, why not ask our very own User:Pi zero here  ;) save polluting your feet once again at Wikinews. —54129 18:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Wikinews is licensed under CC-BY-2.5, wikipedia under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The SA part is important, means derivatives of wikipedia content needs to be shared under the same or similar license. Gray62 cannot license the CC-BY-SA-3.0 content under another incompatible non-SA license; thus issue with copyright. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Galobtter. Well, if I was especially interested in the issue, I would invest further efforts, 54129. But I'm not. I just thought it would be only reasonable to recycle the well sourced content at Wikinews, but the license madness prevents that, even though that site is suffering under a lack of content. But that has to be discussed there, not here. I, for one, am frustrated now and won't waste any more time on it. Gray62 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly, Gray62: That is the fundamental problem with taking poorly thought out projects of JW et al from the drawing board to reality with nothing but a mop-down and a thin hope to hang them on. Hey ho: thus goes the way of all things. —54129 18:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been hijacked by the controversy (overnight since I stubbed it) but I believe him to be a notable physicist, a professor working on high energy physics at CERN with numerous scientific publications to his name. The controversy section should be shortened and form only a section in a longer biography and shouldn't prevent us recognising his wider notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me pls, but the article's history proves that this stub hasn't been hijacked by anyone else and that it was you who added all the stuff about a minor event, instead of providing biographical info! I'm honestly disturbed that you dare to lie into our (virtual) faces and only glad that out of lazyness I didn't vote for you getting adminship. Shame on you! Note: I will bring this to the attention of your sponsors. Gray62 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gray62,uhhhhhh what exactly are you talking about? Philafrenzy's last edit had the article in this state, other people added the stuff about the controversy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, shame on me! I must have misclicked when checking history. Horrible mistake. Philafrenzy, pls accept my sincere, heartfelt apology. I'm awfully sorry! Gray62 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gray62: perhaps strike your remarks at 78.26's talk, then....? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, but thx for the reminder.Gray62 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Strumia works in a different field of Particle Physics as I have, so I am not really in a position to comment on his notability as a peer. But it is very normal to be involved in a large number of publications at this stage of one's career, even for someone quite mediocre. I have created the Q-Item for Strumia and linked him to the handful of articles that he co-authored and that we have in the database, and found that he was first author or only one, which pertained to publimetrics rather than physics per se; this does not prove he is an negligible quantity, but does not prove his notoriety either. To nuance what Philafrenzy said, the Wikipedia article has never been hijacked by the controversy, it was created in response to it. That Strumia escaped notice until now could be due to his field being highly technical; it could also be due to his expert contributions at furthering physics being less notable than his inept attempts at reinventing sociology. If the former is true, we should see more on his career, but that has not happened for the moment; absent convincing discussions on his contributions to Particle physics, we should consider him to be one of the very numerous people whose collective work nurtures the CERN. Rama (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the controversy drew my attention to him, but that doesn't make him less notable as a scholar. I don't care if the controversy is just one line in the article. It's his physics we should write about and based on the citations he probably qualifies for an article on that score. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After my false accusations against you (egg on my face!), I really don't want to raise another stink, but pls consider this question: Since you started this stub, shouldn't you have already checked the notability question and have the necessary infos ready to be added to the article? Gray62 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course his notability as a scholar is independent of the scandal brought upon him by his display of dudebrodery. But what is his scholarly notability, really? He seems known mostly for non-conformist theories ("faster than light"...) and meta-scientific comments on bibliometrics; these do not prove he is a quack, but they are usually not a good sign and certainly no proof of notability. Especially with the sexist nature of the controversy, the contrast is striking with Donna Strickland, who had to achieve a Nobel Prize for Wikipedia to take notice. Rama (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Rama and Piotrus. It's totally obvious that this stub doesn't even try to start an encyclopedic article about Strumia, but is focussed on one minor recent event at Cern. No other issue is covered in the text, no biographical points at all. The intention of Philafrenzy seems to be clear to me, even though he tries to hide it by omitting summaries (sth that had been criticized in his recent, failed RfA, too, and that he promised to avoid!). I usually don't take part in AfDs, so I'm not familiar with all the rules, but after checking WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NPROF and taking Rama's analysis of notability into account, imho this entry should be deleted. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that someone who felt competent for adminship dares to create such a manipulative and fraudulent stub. Does he need to be reminded that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist“? Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? I didn't write any of that Gray. Check the history. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was my lousy mistake, I must have misclicked when comparing versions. Pls accept my sincere apology! Gray62 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking a fresh look at the article, I see great improvement. Notability has been established, w/ good sources. Imho it's ok now. Gray62 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The professor is very notable, partly as a result of CERN censoring his views rather than seeking to disprove them. The media is currently full of material about him. When, yesterday (01/10/2018), I wanted to find out about this man I came to Wikipedia, but there was no article: that says it all. You come to WP to find out about a notable person such as this. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Strumia is notable, per Wikipedia guidelines, the article should at least try to prove it. But it doesn't, it only covers the minor event at Cern. Per guidelines, that ain't good enough as reason for an article about Strumia. That's the problem.Gray62 (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about you add some material about him. There's loads out there, leaving aside the recently controversy. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about you do that, since you claim you found loads of infos? Gray62 (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one complaining about it; you are! 5.81.164.16 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without biographical info and proof of notability, this article will be deleted. Not a problem for me. Is it one for you? Gray62 (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Strumia is a physicist who gave a single pseudoscientific presentation on gender, misleading the event organisers, flouting rules of the event hosts, violating the code of conduct of his funding body and deliberately insulting his audience. It would have been strange if he were not suspended. The event may have been newsworthy at the time, but it doesn't make the individual notable (WP:ONEEVENT). It certainly doesn't warrant a detailed outline of the talk, or a bio presenting him as if these ideas are of scientific merit. Sometimes scientists make incompetent and unfortunate forays into topics well outside their expertise. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document these. If this event has repercussions beyond one news cycle and the repercussions for one individual, I would support a page on the event itself provided it accords with WP:FRINGE. Bobathon71 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NPROF easily, though article certainly needs work. There's coverage and in italian of his research; Per Scientific American he's a notable proponent of an unorthodox theory in particle physics. There's a paragraph in The New York Times on his research. All demonstrating WP:PROF#C1 Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The press coverage from before the controversy is fine, but a bit thin: he's quoted briefly, or named as one of multiple collaborators. So, it's not nothing, but it only goes so far. His citation profile is good: multiple strongly-cited papers, even discounting those from big collaborations where it's hard to discern what exactly his contribution might have been. I think we have a net pass off WP:PROF. The recent dust-up after his speech will, I expect, fade into the background. (The reliable sources have come, written their pieces and gone.) It matters enough to be described, but not, I think, at much greater length than the article currently does. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY - looks like several people have chipped in to help expand the article to show there's more than just the one-off news event. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not obvious that it is a net pass off WP:PROF. Can someone spell it out clearly? I mean... don't forget that some Nobel Prize winner's page has been deleted on that ground. Just sayin' Egaudrain (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Egaudrain: Whose? ——SerialNumber54129 08:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a reference to this[24]. Bobathon71 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. So, Egaudrain, a Noble Prize winner didn't have her article deleted did she? Just sayin'. ——SerialNumber54129 05:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: You're right. My bad. Yet, concerning Strumia's page, I don't see anybody justifying how he passes WP:PROF. Not disputing that he might, but I only see people saying "I know his work, and he passes", without a clear, reliable source supporting it. Can someone spell out the criterion number that is selected. If it is publications, can people from that field give us some baseline reference so that his publication record can be evaluated. If there's any other criterion (like being a Fellow of a learned society), can someone spell it and provide a reference? Egaudrain (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The story of Strickland's page remains relevant to this discussion: [25] Bobathon71 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the controversy, he seems to pass WP:PROF. The controversy itself is part of a wider controversy that is purely political and is at odds with the actual science. For that reason, the controversy has legs, and will retain some notability for a long time. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A credited co-author on the Higgs boson paper, which is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in our generation, but Delete the section about the 'incident at CERN', because it's not encyclopedic. If gender discrimination was in Strumia's field, there would be a much stronger argument for cataloging it for eternity. As is, this specific section has no bearing on the scientist and comes off as WP:SOAP in light of MeToo @SmithAndTeam (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems to meet WP:PROF; a Senior Researcher at the National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics with a multitude of publications. The recent incident seems unduly heavy in his entry, however. ExRat (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But amend to be more civil and reflect neutrality about the controversy. The HEP community has just issued a statement [26] decrying the opinion of Strumia and affirming a commitment to fairness and equality within the sciences. I too have spoken out, in my talks at Physics conferences, about the need to assure fair treatment of academics that keeps the endeavor collegial. Still, there is a sense in academia today that with frequent budget cuts everybody is expendable, and one must be ruthlessly competitive to survive, which might explain but not excuse such behavior. However; the controversy is not the main reason to keep this entry, but rather the man's notability as a scientist is sufficient. Even the "Particles for Justice" statement calls him well-known, shows respect for the man's accomplishments, and avoids dishing dirt. If the public looks to Wikipedia to inform them, we must do that impartially. JonathanD (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strumia does not meet the Academic Guidelines for Notability, although he is most definitely notorious. And, it's most certainly the case that in Academia, notoriety does not necessarily equate with notability -- unless we are talking about Galileo challenging the accepted notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and saying that the earth revolves around the sun. This made Galileo both notorious and notable, because he was correct. Strumia's situation is not equivalent.
    I also note that the reference to Strumia being a "hotshot" in physics, was, in my view, an inappropriate quote from one of three women scientists interviewed for a BBC article. Neither the physicist NOR the biophysicist described Strumia as a hotshot, but rather the cell biologist. And, frankly, how could she know this -- it's not her field. While I am not a particle physicist, I have many friends and colleagues who ARE in particle physics. They publish papers with dozens of authors, and very few of them, other than major team leaders have had Wikipedia pages created for them.Carries mum (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the "hot shot" statement. First, it was a misquote: the original said "big-shot professional". (In my own sense of English idioms, that means something significantly different. A "big shot" is older and established, while a "hot shot" is an up-and-coming newer arrival.) It's also a remark that is out of place in an academic biography. The tone is wrong, and it conveys no useful information. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coincidentally with the creation of the article, WikiProject Women in Red is holding a meetup to create missing articles for Women in STEM StrayBolt (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope the Women in Red who become Women in Blue are actually notable and are not just academics. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is one of over 5000 authors on the Higgs boson paper, accounting for a third of his citation count. He has only 3 papers over 1k citations. Strickland and Mourou are the only authors of their paper and share the Nobel, which is a trailing indicator like for the Higgs. It is not recommended to compare citation counts across fields. Criteria for "highly cited academic" includes cautions about using Google Scholar and h-index. StrayBolt (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE to closer. There has been plenty of attempted canvassing, e.g. in The Washington Post - [27] wumbolo ^^^ 14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that canvassing in any meaningful sense? It basically just says that this page exists. It doesn't tell readers to come here and participate; in general, it doesn't make participating in Wikipedia sound very enjoyable at all. (It says that our article "contains scant third-party references to why his research is significant." As the editor who added some of those references, I'd tend to agree. That's what happens when the press covers a researcher as one member of a collaboration.) Anyway, we've been here for a week, and the consensus looks like a pass of WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be construed as canvassing, in that the author - a moaning feminist - implies that Strumia should not have an article. There's an undertone of "get over to Wikipedia and vote to delete it". 5.81.164.16 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're fantasising rather than reading. None of that is in the article. Bobathon71 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read it again just now to be sure, and I still don't see "canvassing" going on. The piece doesn't even make clear what is necessary to become a Wikipedia editor, and — to get nitpicky — it says there's "a lively debate", not a vote, so it doesn't really suggest that force of numbers would prevail. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's lede may fail to point promptly enough to its subject notability, but the entry fulfills all the BLP's necessary WP:N. The nature of the controversy and its coverage are both significant. The scholar's publication record also validates its inclusion in WP.Den... (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From my reading of it, it seems he’s more “notable” for controversy than his actual scientific work.Trillfendi (talk) 14:34, 10 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Jonathan

Patrick Jonathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, not noted, cant find references about him. Definitely fails WP:BIO --Jay (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:18, 2 October 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 delete. If somebody (looking in User: Hobit's direction) wants to undertake finding sources and adding them to the list, I'll be happy to restore this to draftspace for you. But, in the meantime, there's clear consensus that this does not meet our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese role-playing games by genre

List of Japanese role-playing games by genre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All JRPGS are role-playing games by definition. Listing by "genre" here means listing by its in-universe setting, which seems more like a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOG to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see how this is a suitable article. Video games are categorized by gameplay, and not plot/setting. This, JRPGs in this case, are more often described as being a "strategy RPG", or a "action RPG", etc. The article has next to no sourcing, as articles on this subject won't call a game a "fantasy RPG", or a "Sci-Fi RPG", especially for non-notable games that litter this list. 08:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN, possibly WP:OR as well. There are absolutely no sources presented in the article demonstrating whether this is notable or not. Also fails the non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SportingFlyer talk 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Ajf773, I value WP too much to let it become a mere catalogue of things WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Den... (talk) 23:24, 9 October 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DVNO (musician)

DVNO (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. I can't locate any significant coverage of this person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Flooded with them hundreds 06:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per proposal of failing WP:GNG. I wasn't even aware of the artist when the song came out and I thought the DVNO name was a reference to the song. If there's any sources, I imagine it would point more to Mehdi Pinson than this moniker. I wasn't even known about it until the page move for the disamg page (it wasn't necessary in the first place and now we have the contribution history for the musician mixed in with edits about the song). The move should also be reverted to preserve the page contribution history before the deletion. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject's "fame" rests entirely on his guest appearance on one single, and I cannot find any reliable sources backing up any of the biographical claims in the article. This article started out as the page for that single, before being hijacked in February 2013 by a SPA who turned it into an article about the person, which necessitated the creation of a new article for the single and a disambiguation page. If this article is deleted, the DVNO disambiguation page should revert back to being the page for the song, and DVNO (song) changed into a redirect to the main page. Richard3120 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 7 October 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 deleted per G11 and A7-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Quotin"

"Quotin" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD tag was repeatedly removed by IP and then a newly-created WP:SPA account, hence bringing this to AfD as a PROD tag will simply be removed as well. No coverage in independent reliable sources. All sources in the article are to the app's official website, a reddit post made by the app's creator, and a google play link. No established notability (doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:WEBCRIT). Bennv3771 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:21, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITab

ITab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the article's current subject is notable–the article provides one source that goes to a mere mention in a book. Googling the acronym returns many different results, many of which appear to be more notable than the current subject. Specifically searching "Intelligence Training Advisory Board", its full title (and what the article's name should be) returned exactly one result. Fairly certain that's short of WP:ORGCRITE. Previously nominated for PROD by DGG, blocked by Student342, who wrote an argument on the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:22, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Oliver Quinn

Alex Oliver Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable artist - what limited sources there are are self published. Blitzcream (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 2 October 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter (politics)

Bolter (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bkissin - I can't find many instances in which this is used, and articles like this: [28] discuss a different concept. SportingFlyer talk 23:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wouldn't. WP:DICDEF is commonly misunderstood because people don't read it. Its main point is that we should cover topics by their meaning not the particular words used to describe them. It's an argument for merging synonyms and is not a reason to delete anything at all. Andrew D. (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, the above comment is frankly shocking coming from someone as experienced as you. If you have an interpretation of policy that is not "common", then even if you consider it to be the "correct" interpretation of the current wording of the policy page, it is not an enforceable policy. Wikipedia policy is dictated by common practice, not the other way round. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't a common term (I don't even see evidence of it being an uncommon term) in modern American politics; in the references regarding 1900-era politics it's used as a descriptive word rather than an epithet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:07, 8 October 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Loose Women presenters

List of Loose Women presenters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too in-depth for topic with low-notability. No sources. Merge former regular presenters and panellists to Loose Women. Guests who haven't been regular are not notable. Matt14451 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cut the guest list, which seems to be the major issue and is zero-sourced, and as most of the 'guest hosts' are single episodes, pretty much is just saying 'talk show guest' without actually using the term and gussying up their appearance to be more special than it is. The current/past panels would overwhelm the main article so break-out is justified there. Nate • (chatter) 16:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only moving the Former regular presenters and Panellists table wouldn't overwhelm the page, could maybe combine it with the current table. The current panel table needs to be copied from the main page so is probably usually out-of-date compared to the main page version which is updated daily. The Former regular presenters and Panellists by itself isn't enough content for its own page. Matt14451 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 2 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Harlech

Tallulah Harlech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Even prior to the recent (own?) hatchet job, the refs were all interviews or perhaps regurgitated press releases. Nothing substantial, independent or reliable. Her apparent relationship to aristocracy doesn't count for anything. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles' source, Fashion Telegraph is a part of The Daily Telegraph, a very reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the notability criteria for people states" multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". One source does not equate multiple sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't saw it at first, but our subject had removed 2 references (and couple sentences) which expanded on her notability. I restored the version which was prior to removal. So, I think she is quite notable (as of now 16 refs).--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 2 October 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 delete. Keep arguments not convincing, especially in the face of "what if it becomes a developed product and would be famous" - it clearly isn't a famous developed product then, now is it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KidSense.ai

KidSense.ai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product is new and not (yet) notable. There is a single reliable source which discusses this product in significance. Everything else fails one or more elements of being an independent reliable secondary source (mostly through press releases or Churnalism from said PR). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As creator, the techcrunch article establishes Notability, as it is dedicated and detailed, also great technology review website like techcrunch covers those topics that are worthy enough. As far as other sources are concerned, i will encourage my senior writer fellows to edit out un-encyclopedic data. Thankyou Sangemarwa (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sangemarwa, I do not want to vote for delete just yet (although I am inclined towards it). For clarification, could you please explain what do you mean by "I will encourage my senior writer fellows to edit ......"? Are you the owner/shareholder of the company or the creator of this product? If so, please refer to WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:DCOI -Jay (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, no sir, I am not the owner of this, nor I am related to it, I came across it while researching on Speech recognition. I said the edit thing because I thought if the community thinks it is not correctly written, they may reword it appropriately. :) thanks. Sangemarwa (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft (in my opinion) is equivalent to delete the article, and then ask the "page creator" or anybody interested to work on their user draft space. Lets wait for others opinion. In the meantime, I am still considering whether to vote for "delete" or "keep". The article needs a lot of improvement if we were to vote "keep". The notability is still a question mark. --Jay (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I this this article is legit. I dont see major problems with it. I was searching for kids speech recognition and this page helped me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimaKev2017 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — NimaKev2017 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NimaKev2017, as highlighted by Barkeep49, not only youre a new user - joining Wiki to do minor edit on the article, I am a bit skeptical about your comment. We are not talking about legit or not, we are talking about notable as per Wiki Policy. Please read WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment That is true. But what if it becomes a developed product and would be famous.... some one else would clearly create this article. I mean it would just be cruel to take the oppurtunity away from the user who had made it now. B. N .D | ✉ 10:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this becomes a developed product and is famous we'll have a Wikipedia article about it. It would not surprise me if in six months to two years if there is enough sourcing out there for a page. Just because it's deleted now doesn't mean it can't ever have a Wikipedia article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Cited TechCrunch coverage is not independent, since it covers the company's participation in TechCrunch's Disrupt conference. This company can have an article when it becomes notable in the future, but it doesn't meet the requirements right now. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 8 October 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo E. Martinez

Hugo E. Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, short passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject. North America1000 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is no default notability for LDS General Authorities whatsoever, and no guideline page states such. Sorry, but the personal, made-up notability standards stated above are not aligned with actual notability on Wikipedia at all. North America1000 01:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Contrary to what the above editor claims, proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Most sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Liahona, lds.org, Church News reprinted verbatim in Deseret News) that do not count toward establishing notability. (Note that the previous AfD failed to account for the fact that some Deseret News coverage is simply reprinted Church News and therefore not independent even though Deseret News sometimes produces independent coverage.) The other two sources are 1) two mentions of subject's name in routine coverage of church activities in The Spectrum, and 2) 140 words in an 1800 word Daily Herald story on new leaders in the church. That's not significant coverage, and search does not find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, only the usual passing mentions in routine coverage and brief quotes reprinted from church sources. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where information on the subject already exists. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not a single feature in this biography that deserves a WP entry. Perhaps a much shorter version fits in a list of LDS leaders, but it does not meet even the minimum requirements of notability. Otherwise, we should open entries for plenty of people in leadership positions who have not reach remarkability in the public arena. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 16:07, 2 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José A. Teixeira

José A. Teixeira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, short passing mentions and quotations from the subject such as this, none of which establishes notability. The primary sources in the article and found in searches also do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Below is a synopsis of the sources in the article, which except for one, are all primary sources.
  • Ref 1 – Primary source published by the LDS church
  • Refs 2–7 – Primary source published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church
  • Ref 8 – Has two name checks for the subject. This is certainly not significant coverage.
  • Listed source 1 – Primary source published by Liahona, which is owned by the LDS church
  • Listed source 2 – Primary source, Church News
Also note that per WP:SPIP:
– North America1000 21:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an extension of any religious organization. As with others in similar positions (see here), this entry fails to meet the minimum requirement for an entry (WP:GNG). This is a good example of why WP should be protected from other than vandalism and disruptive editing. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 16:14, 2 October 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 21:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ida R. Alldredge

Ida R. Alldredge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. This source provides a short paragraph about the subject, but is not significant in its depth of coverage, and per searches, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist at all. North America1000 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James500: Could you provide some specific sources that provide significant coverage? I looked through the search parameters you listed, but the ones that are readable are passing mentions, and the rest are snippet views, some of which are also passing mentions, while other appear to be possibly or even likely as such. North America1000 05:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps within LDS circles Alldredge may be notable, but here it does not meet the notability standards. Singing in religious meetings and publishing poems with little circulation outside of religious circles could not serve as barometers of remarkability for WP. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 16:25, 2 October 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Silverman (producer)

Jeff Silverman (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I didn't see the previous version of this article before its deletion, so I don't know if this qualifies for speedy deletion under G4, but this version was recreated three days after deletion by an editor who discloses his COI on his user page that he is paid by Mr. Silverman's company for promotional purposes. The problems are the same as the first discussion: while Mr. Silverman has undoubtedly been involved with notable artists, there is almost nothing that demonstrates individual notability and is not WP:INHERITED. The "gold and platinum" claims are likely for the Rick Springfield albums of the early 1980s that Mr. Silverman played on and co-wrote the occasional song, but that's not equivalent to a certification award for Mr. Silverman himself. Likewise, the "Grammy nomination" claim is for a record he produced for his wife, but that was only for the first preliminary round of nominations – it didn't make the final list of nominees. The HMMA award was won by an artist he produced, not himself... it should also be noted that the HMMA awards are only given to artists who have to nominate their work for consideration in the first place, and are awarded by a committee that includes members of the Recording Academy, of which Mr. Silverman is a voting member, so there is a potential COI there. Everything else is the briefest of passing mentions in Billboard, links to Mr. Silverman's own websites, or non-RS sources such as iMDb. I cannot find any significant independent coverage of Mr. Silverman that warrants his own article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any independent mention of Mr. Silverman's membership of the Recording Academy - it's taken from his own websites. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member is very run of the mill, just means he is a working producer who had put out some songs and has paid his membership. Whenever someone boasts of being such a member it is pure puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:10, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bart B More

Bart B More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable music producer. Google search reveals plenty of vanity hits and publicity, and this article, but no independent coverage.

Draft was declined twice in AFC before being copied to mainspace. Copying a draft to mainspace is permitted, but only if it belongs in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I don't really get the 'but no independent coverage' part. I added quite some (in my opinion independent) references to the page, hoping this would be sufficient. I could even add more, but I'm kind of lost whether the references that I'm adding are 'independent' enough based on your remark? --Konayt (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konayt, some of your sources pass the independence criteria, but fail on providing "significant coverage". For example, Billboard, Dancing Astronaut and The Liverpool Echo are respected and reliable sources, but all their articles do is mention Bart B. More's name, nothing else. The Dutch DJ Guide site has a more in-depth interview, but won't be considered a reliable source as it is not a professional journalistic site with editorial control, but what appears to be a profit-making business running dance events. So what we are looking for is significant coverage from a respected magazine or news website. Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard3120, thanks for the explanation! I see what you mean... I do find quite some interviews on google, but probably those are not within the standards. I did add some more references just now, but even on them I'm not sure anymore.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 02:10, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cejka

Mike Cejka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical article which fails WP:JOURNALIST. The only significant coverage which exists relates to a legal incident from 2009, which should not be included anyway per WP:BLPCRIME. schetm (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ironically enough, I voted to Keep ten years ago, but that was procedural; I wasn't sold on the subject's notability then and am not now. Ravenswing 06:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local meteorologists are almost never notable. We would have been better served 10 years ago if we had never done procedural keeps and had insisted it be shown a subject was notable. We are reaping the whirlwind of a bloated and less than useful Wikipedia from the wind we sowed then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of a claim to notability and failure of adequate independent coverage. Nice try to stretch the Emmy Award to make it personal. For a notable meteorologist see George Fischbeck from the pre-Internet days. --Bejnar (talk) 01:23, 9 October 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 merge to Andrew Motion. North America1000 01:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming (play)

Incoming (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Games Soft

Pocket Games Soft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New gaming company with no indication of notability. Article creator is likely a paid editor who's written a number of articles about dodgy companies such as deleted Tomtop.com. Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 01:27, 2 October 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 merge to Tom Vasel. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dice Tower

The Dice Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to be a notable podcast. The only sources are the subject's own website, a blog, and a youtube channel. My own searches turned up an unrelated RPG convention, and the physical act of stacking dice on top of one another, but nothing relevant. Reyk YO! 13:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to find more coverage such as this: "The Dice Tower, an influential collection of video and audio shows dedicated exclusively to tabletop games ... The Dice Tower logo ... adorns the cover of many game boxes — including those found at big-box retail establishments like Target and Walmart." Andrew D. (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) fails to unearth new sources. Existing sources both in article and AfD are insufficient. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tom Vasel. Cannot find coverage of the podcast in sources; the name is dropped to often explain who Vasel is, demonstrating Vasal's notability but not the podcast. Reasonable to discuss the podcast in his article and leave a redirect behind. --Masem (t) 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it also might be a candidate for deletion. Though well sourced, the sources are principally fleeting mentions or not independent, with the exception of a short Wired article about a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for his medical expenses. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we might have stumbled on a bit of a walled garden of crufty rpg articles. These should be further scrutinised. Reyk YO! 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW (since I know this has come up on RSN and ANI multiple times in recent months): I consider myself a lapsed gamer, primarily because of developing different hobbies that took up most of my time, but I still enjoy gaming from time to time and I'm a loyal fan of TFS at the Table, so no one can claim I'm an outsider "attacking" tabletop gaming with this !vote. It should, however, probably be noted that Andrew has never apparently indicated an interest in RPGs or the like, until they started showing up recently on AFD; so this definitely isn't a case of "non-gamers want these articles deleted, and only 'real' gamers 'get' these articles and their sources". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I guess. IMO it's notable, but given that it's (mostly?) a one-man show, all the sources I can find are really about Tom. If someone can find anything that really talks about the history of the podcast and not mostly about Tom, ping me. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 2 October 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Stevenson

Blake Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To get around the common name, I ran searches for information on "Blake Stevenson" in conjunction with either "domestic yeti" or "low latency", and found nearly nothing in the way of coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Appears not to meet the notability criteria for inclusion. The sources cited in the article are all affiliated. Largoplazo (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:25, 2 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_October_2&oldid=1142615216"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 2, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.