Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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) 00:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garie Blackwell

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

She appears in dozens of Gbooks entries , almost always in lists of people who worked on a partcular project. I cannot find SIGCOV in independent sources, GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Airbrush Action source is pretty decent, and if there were more like that, the requirements of the GNG would be met. I don't seem to be able to find something like it though. --Vexations (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cv, nn. 3 refs in the article, 1 x ebay, 1 x local coverage, 1 x 404. Would have googled if i'd felt there was a claim to significance. Szzuk (talk) 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)

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

Completing AfD nomination for an IP. Their rationale was that this fails NSONG and should be merged to the parent album. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think it's notable enough; it can also always be improved upon, especially with things like chart performances. The original nominator also doesn't have a legitimate account, and has been nominating many of Kanye West's songs for deletion (and not completing the nominations), if that means anything. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's there can be expanded upon, as BeatlesLedTV has said. It's a good indication that there's more coverage. At the very least, it could be redirected until such a time. Ss112 18:52, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Levitan

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

Wikipedia page is about a science journalist, he has been published in multiple notable publications. He looks like he is a fine writer and has a book out that looks very interesting. But I've been searching around and can't find anything that makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia page. The citations used here are just background ones that show he is writing for these notable places. He has done some interviews for his new book. How is this science journalist any different from any other science journalist? Wikipedia is not a personal website which is what this page looks like. Sgerbic (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. His book "Not a Scientist" is held by over six hundred libraries: [1]. It has book reviews in The Irish Times [2], Nature [3], Nature Astronomy [4], Physics World [5], Chemistry World [6], Kirkus [7], and Publishers Weekly [8] [9]. And there is other coverage [10]. James500 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment James500 you have just made a case for there to be a Wikipedia page for the book, but not the person. Sgerbic (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how WP:AUTHOR works. James500 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear - A journalist who reports on the news will probably not have the notable citations to have a Wikipedia page. If they become a part of the news then they will gather the citations required. See Nina Burleigh, Brian Deer, Mary Roach to see how it this is done correctly. Sgerbic (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the author of a book is not merely a journalist who reports the news. He became something more than a journalist who reports the news the moment he published the book. To be clear, an author with that level of book reviews and library holdings is ipso facto notable for being an author with that level of book reviews and library holdings. James500 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of avalable sources on the book + journalism career. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His work has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and that makes him notable. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonzo Rachel

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

Abject fail on WP:NMUSIC, also fails WP:GNG since all reliable independent sources cited are namechecks or passing mentions, none of them are actually about the subject. ~70k followers on YouTube, which is insignificant, and ~50k views on the supposedly groundbreaking video. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor appearances do not add up not notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC. Orientls (talk) 06:55, 1 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) 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Province of Northeastern Hungary

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

A non-notable initiative of a non-notable ethnic minority party, which otherwise received only 114 (!) votes in the last (April 2018) nationwide parliamentary election. Norden1990 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an actual province, just a proposal. We could redirect the article to the article about the political party that supported it, but that article doesn't exist, or to the article about its leader, but that article doesn't exist either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No comment on whether or not Wikipedia should cover this, but this title should not exist, not even as a redirect, per WP:POVTITLE as it suggests that such a province actually exists. SpinningSpark 23:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Notability. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an NPOV article and should be kept. Skyhighway (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and Spinningspark. We need an article on the newly estabished Roma party first before we start having articles on their proposals. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't start to work on it, why to jump to delete something done? Is this constructive? Skyhighway (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification - I want to notify the community that the user recently created another article with the same content: Roma people Province of Northeastern Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deleted WP:CSD A10. That's not a helpful thing to do. SpinningSpark 10:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to WP:Notability, also original author has been blocked because of POV issues. Skirts89 (talk) 15:15, 1 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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal RL

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

No evidence of notability. No suitable coverage in independent reliable sources of Kushal RL, Kushal Lalwani, or a person who some sources claim to be the same person, Kushal Moharaz. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Also, I find zero coverage for Mister Teen USA, so the contest he is said to have won is itself a non-notable event. Largoplazo (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5 and A7 criteria for speedy deletion. The article was created by a sockpuppet of Kushalmoharaz, vide: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kushalmoharaz and is about a person that isn't even remotely notable right now. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:06, 29 September 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) 00:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azul garcia griego

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

No evidence of notability. Article unsourced except for his Twich.tv presence, and I don't find coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced BLP, and furthermore one making some strong claims of notability without the slightest shred of proof. Almost every Google result is to Twitter, or YouTube, or Twitch. Ravenswing 20:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This individual does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO in that I am unable to find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unsourced BLP with no supported claims of notability. It also has a very promotional tone.Sandals1 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Not a notable streamer, same goes for Pokemon tournament participation.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:35, 6 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 The Dirty South (album). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Devil Don't Stay

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. NB Previous nomination failed because nomination was by a now blocked sockpuppet. All votes! in favour of deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Dirty South (album). No individual notability for the song. Teemu08 (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no refs never have been any. The first afd was closed as keep with three delete votes and no keep votes. Szzuk (talk) 18:54, 6 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. AGK ■ 09:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alya (singer and entertainer)

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

Only sources are wikipedia's article about her husband (that in turn cites his website), a linkedin profile and the subject's own website. No indication that there is any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any additional reliable or independent sources. Purely promotional article. Jmertel23 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 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. AGK ■ 09:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Non-notable person. Created by the user as per point of interest. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 18:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GenuineArt (talk) 03:12, 30 September 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. Tone 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isophene Goodin Bailhache

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

I spent some time, pondering over this but am unsure, as to what's the case for notability of the subject, in terms of the sourcing.

The sole thing that seems likely is that she can have a remote claim of notability as Vice-Chairman of Historic Spots of the Daughters of the American Revolution.But, I fail to find a single source that covers anything near that locus.

Ref 1--A source published by the very organisation, that she vice-chaired.Fails criterion of independent sourcing.N

Ref 2-Genealogical database.Does not contribute an iota to notability.--N

Ref 3-Unless I've gone bat-shit blind, I don't see how this supports the text in the article (or might be used to support damn anything, as to her).--N

Ref 4-Can be easily used for verifiability purposes but ought be charitably described as something that contains anything and everything (~1800 bios), about any woman that managed to wade slightly above the median-class.

That it seems to be the sole mentionable work of the author in his lifetime, got a mixed review (which praised the efforts but criticised certain exclusions) do not instill a high level of, confidence.

Overall, (IMO), it is pretty reliable for verifiability but for nothing much else.

To take an example, we don't even consider ODNB, (which has a far greater reputation as to publishing house and the compiling stuff) in the regard of making anyone auto-notable.That speaks enough as to mine disagreeing that it propels someone to automatic-notability or contributes heavily to the factor.

Basically, a partial N, as to establishment of notability.Might contribute by some extent.

Ref 5-College year book which does not mention the subject but rather the death-date of his father.Superb! N

Ref 6-A list of deaths, in a local newspaper, that mentions her mother's death.Does not mention the subject, yet again.N

Ref 7, 8 & 9-Genealogical database.Does not contribute to notability.N

Ref 10-Does not mention the subject.But, mentions DAR.N

Ref 11--I was happy to finally find the first speck of coverage about (her)/(her works) but to my utter regret, it devoted only two lines.The press was probably more catalysed by her family-tree than the event:-) YN.

Ref 12 and 13--Surely being listed in the social register is an indicator of encyclopedic notability.Sigh......N

Ref 14,15,16 and 17-What the heck are these? That she was presiding over trivial social gatherings, which made it to the local-news-clipping, (as a form of invite/note) is encyclopedic stuff? And, which of that lends any to notability? N

Ref 18--She has not anything to do with the painting except that she was the one to donate it.The claim to notability is surely there!N

Ref 19-Yeah, she died and that has made, as a trivial mention, to a local daily.Mind that there were no obituaries et al.N

Overall, despite the ~~quasi-~~good efforts of SusunW, I'm afraid that it resembles a case of CITESPAM and is an example of an article without any source that either demonstrates her notability or devotes significant-encyclopedic-coverage to her.

I'm happy to pull off my nomination, shall more significant sourcing is located.

And, a redirect to Daughters of the American Revolution can be executed.∯WBG^converse 15:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "quasi-good" in the nomination statement is a personal attack, and the characterization of one of the most significant references (reference 3, an entry about her in a biographical dictionary) is just plain dishonest (the direct link to the page in question is https://archive.org/stream/womenofwestserie00binh#page/20 in case anyone else wants to verify that this is indeed an in-depth biographical entry about the subject and does in fact support the content of the article). The article is adequately sourced and two of its sourced claims (her work for the DAR and "prominent member of San Francisco society") provide claims of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your brazen personal attack , over the very-above ¡vote, about me and my motivations, I find it a tad ironic to listen to what's a PA from you. Now that, you've removed it in entirety, post my message on your t-p, you need to know that once messages are replied to, in any form or manner, retractions ought be executed by strike-outs, not deletions but then I am not surprised.

Anyways, quasi-good was not intended as a personal attack and rather as a appreciation of her salvation efforts.

That being said, the qualifier can probably qualify as condescending and I've struck that out.But,anyways, Susun's efforts were constructive but suboptimal, IMO and that's what I tried to convey, by a rather poor choice of words.

Yeah, the subject works for the DAR and vice-chaired it. So? Given that not a single source has bothered any about the issue, (barring devoting a single line), I fail to see as to how that leads to notability, in light of the current sourcing.Bring me more sources, covering her in light of DAR stuff and I will happily pull off the nomination.

As to the biographical dictionary, it seems to be the sole mentionable work of the author in his lifetime, got a mixed review (which praised the efforts but criticised certain exclusions et al) do not instill a high level of, confidence.

FWIW, we don't even consider ODNB, (which has a greater reputation as to publishing house and compiling stuff) in the regard of entitling auto-notability.That speaks enough as to mine stance.

As to a prominent member of society, meh. I have pretty covered the aspect in my nomination-statement.∯WBG^converse 18:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge perhaps a few sentences or a short paragraph into the Daughters of the American Revolution article. Delete the rest. Not convinced that she is notable enough to merit a whole individual article for herself. The creator of the article was blocked indefinitely last month. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. How is the block relevant to this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned it more as an aside, rather than as part of the argument, so that readers of this can be aware that the creator of the article is unable to comment on this AFD himself or herself as he or she is blocked indefinitely. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kind Tennis Fan, I guess a redirect shall be more optimal, because if we think of devoting a line or two (which is bare-minimum for a merge) in the target-article about the subject, I have enough confidence that we can do that about all the people to have graced the chairs of presidents, chairwoman and vice-chairman, who ought have garnered equal coverage, (if not more) and if we execute that, umm......a spectacle will await us at the target.Though, a CFORK can be done, in such cases:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go along with a redirect. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taken together, the sourcing is enough to build a brief biography upon, and enough to make the case that such an article should exist. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 13:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd accept Chair of the DAR committee as sufficient for probable notability, but I would not extend that to vice-chair, even were there reliable proof of it. (and I wouldn't redirect for vice-chair--we should probably make an article for that Committee as well as for the main DAR, and include in that more specific article a list for all the chairs---then those who wanted to to what really would help in writing about notable women would have a more trustworthy list of names of those who might actually be notable.

Ref 4 is absurdly unreliable for notability , any more than who's who in America, which it much resembles. First, there's selectivity: according to the preface,(p.16) it includes "women who had done something of a creative, constructive, or 'outstanding' nature" -- that's "something" not "something notable or even important" , Second, the information gives no specifics, like dates, and it is derived entirely from "questionnaires"--the publisher even offers to send the standard questionnaire for the next edition to anyone who might ask for it! The comparison to ODNB is very helpful: in , the information there is always accompanied by exact detail and by references to the sources, consequently being covered by a main entry in ODNB is unquestionable notability , and probably even being covered by a brief entry there is also--I can not remember anyone with such an entry being rejected where in the last 12 years--it is the very model of the ideal biographical source for WP. The rest of the references are mostly irrelevant to her, and in all cases totally useless. (By the way, one of the ways librarians are taught to judge reference books is to read the prefatory material,. at WP this seems to be almost never done) DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for your arguments.At any case, do we take ODNB as a case of auto-entitling notability? I don't think so:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we usually do, actually. (I am certainly not claiming that the biographical dictionary used here is at the same level.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is the same , by which we would accept that anything with an article in the EB deserves an article here. The fundamental rule, is that WP is an encyclopedia , and covers at least the same coverage as accepted general and specialized print encyclopedias. The usual rule for biographical encyclopedias has been that we accept the principle national biographical encyclopedia of each country as an authority. The DNB/ODNB is the model. (The current online version has full articles, and brief articles associated with the main articles. We certainly accept the main, we have usually accepted the secondary also--we do not of course accept a mere mention in an article, just by itself. There is no equivalent for the US: the nearest is the 19th century Appleton's, which had notoriously erratic standards, both of inclusion and accuracy. Some of the ones for other countries have special considerations: Dictionary of NZ Biography and Australian Dict. Biog. both make a point of including "representative" individuals as well as significant ones. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, usually when an article is this developed there is a reason, but I can't find that reason. Szzuk (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute strikeout trying to turn up this name, either as Isophene Goodin Bailhache, Isophene G. Bailhache, or Isophene Bailhache on Newspapers.com. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite Perhaps you should have tried "Mrs John Bailhache". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Forty-five hits, all incidental, none counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some hits for "Mrs. John Bailhache" (not all the same woman) and "Mrs. J. M. Bailhache", but in sources on Google Books and newspapers.com that I can't access, so it isn't clear to me how relevant they are. I do have a sneaking suspicion that if Wiki Loves Monuments, we might think seriously about acknowledging people who played an early role in deciding what counts as a monument and how that should be marked (which is what she did as National Vice-Chairman of Historic Spots). Alongside such formal roles, "socialite" is a vague term that in the context of the time could indicate considerable informal influence that is not likely to be minuted (but might explain her inclusion in Women of the West). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from the introductory material in WoW it seems that anyone could nominate anyone for coverage, and if you answered their questionnaire, you got included. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 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 redirect to Sanitary engineering. Sandstein 08:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public health engineering

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

I proposed this article for deletion, but the PROD was removed by a different editor with no explanation so I am bringing it to AfD. Article lacks any assertion of notability for minor differences in terminology or goals in India, and no sources have been provided for the topic in general. India-specific terms could possibly be added to the established sanitary engineering article. See also Talk:Sanitary engineering, regarding a merge proposal on which nobody has acted for 30 days. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are readily available. A selection follows. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water-Supply and Public Health Engineering
Public Health Engineering: A Textbook of the Principles of Environmental Sanitation
Public Health Engineering Practice
Elements of Public Health Engineering
The Public Health Engineer
Practical Public Health Engineering
The Society of Public Health Engineers
Introduction to Public Health Engineering in Humanitarian Contexts

Comment - Hijiri 88 below has some accusations about this voter's motivations, but regardless of motivations, this list of 8 "sources" is nothing but a collection of book and magazine titles (plus one college course at #8) found with a Google search on the term <<public health engineering>>. In an AfD vote, mentioning a source requires some discussion of how that source would actually improve the article, and all we have here is a little evidence that the article's title is also a term that can be found somewhere online. Meanwhile, this vote ignores the fact that the article under discussion attempts to be specific to India. If any of these listed works mention that country, perhaps someone can enlighten us with the relevant page numbers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete Essentially an unsourced, one-sentence garbage sub-stub that serves no purpose to our readers. I don't have an opinion on whether this topic is independently noteworthy or could be the topic of a decent article, but it's clear that Andrew Davidson doesn't either and has not read any of the above sources he found by Googling up the title of this article (see the similar cite-bombs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent and less obviously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist rhetoric).

As a related aside, Andrew's unexplained blanking of the PROD was disruptive, and at this point he should probably be banned from removing PRODs without explanation, if not removing PRODs altogether, or even article deletion in general. For one thing, it's impossible to counter the argument he's definitely going to make at the AFD if he hasn't made it in his PROD revert, and it seems like he never allows that, with the specific intention of showing up and making a bogus counter-policy argument at AFD that could have been shot down pre-emptively if he'd also made it in an edit summary when reverting the PROD.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also this carefully disguised canvassing with misleading/irrelevant edit summary and section title. It appears to have misfired as (per below) Deryck didn't !vote as apparently intended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sanitary engineering or disambiguate with Public Health Engineering Department, Public Health Engineering Department (Sikkim), and Orissa Public Health Engineering Organisation. Industry articles like this Arup article uses "public health engineering" in a way largely synonymous with what sanitary engineering is about. Yes I agree this topic is notable but I think it's substantially the same as "sanitary engineering". I think we will better serve our readers by writing one unified article about them. Deryck C. 09:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but needs an overhaul. Not sure if deleting is the way to go in this case, but I'm open to comments. Handoto (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sanitary engineering. An article specific to India should not be at this title. Inasmuch as the article says anything beyond what is in sanitary engineering, it is only the unsurprising fact that India has such departments. The claim that the two terms are not synonymous is neither explained nor supported. SpinningSpark 17:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tried to make changes that makes it a little better article. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sanitary engineering per others. No good reason for this stub to exist by itself since same activities are already covered by the "sanitary engineering" article and it is highly unlikely that this stub will ever have enough material to expand. Also, any vote by "Andrew D." should be ignored/stricken down, per Hijiri88's comments (unreasonable removal of PROD, very obvious canvassing to try and save the article).Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deryck. Concur in entirety.Also echo Hijri.∯WBG^converse 09:11, 1 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 subject is notable, and that BLP is satisfied. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swaleh Naqvi

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

Unremarkable criminal per WP:CRIME. Bio also fails the WP:ONEEVENT rules. Could be part of another article, but certainly not on its own. Saqib (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:BLP1E, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BLPCRIME. There are thousands of criminals, and only those with significant coverage have an article. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was CEO of Bank of Credit and Commerce International - which had 20 billion dollars in supposed assets that mostly went "puff" as part of the fraud case he was involved with - so no - not a run of the mill criminal. Financial scandals of this magnitude generate lasting coverage, which is present here - e.g. - [11][12][13][14][15]. In addition, there is surely (newspaper archive) coverage of his pre-collapse activities as CEO. Still covered in media in 2015 - [16]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per sources brought by Icewhiz. and note that it is not a BLP1E when you crash a large investment bank. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the obvious coverage in the book [17] Agree that this was a major international fraudery that impacted large number of countries and people. which makes this person Pass our notability standards for WP:BIO--DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG per sources provided above and as per outomes passes WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE too. Pollock's (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote: WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE.BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 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 keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Olympiad in Informatics

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

No coverage in reliable sources in either language; this article has been unsourced for over a decade. PROD challenged without tackling my rationale. wumbolo ^^^ 19:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the parent topic International Olympiad in Informatics is notable, so whatever the consensus here is, this shouldn't be a delete as it would be a valid redirect to the parent topic, so a default of redirect should be considered per policy WP:ATD-Rdeletion is not required. Widefox; talk 00:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality sources for notabilty seem hard to come by. Alternatives including merging with Hong Kong Mathematics Olympiad (which actually is more famous to my inderstanding), or changing to 'Hong Kong Olympiads' and embracing the other Olypiad disciplines (Perhaps leaving mathematics as own article as originally individually famous). Citations for Hong Kong Olympiads (combined) are easier to come by. However I get the feeling HK government press releases such as [18] might be regarded as a scrutenised significanet, reviewed and reliable source by any reasonable judgement. I am, minded the PROD challenge was likely in good faith that an attempt would be made to update the article, albeit not probably (so far at least) to a standard acceptable to the nominator. The challenger has also declared a COI and has had edits applied through due process. But I think we would welcome the challenger comments here and especially if independent sources can be identified. As a last resort in the event the outcome is delete can I request draftification. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note: COI. There is no doubt that the article requires clean up to remove NPOV and add sources. That is why I requested edit to only fix the most vital facts (in the lead section) and added two sources. The question is whether the subject meets notability requirement. First please understand that most newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong do not keep their old issues online, though they are accessible from the public library and the e-database Wisenews. So I visited the library to look for sources. I am listing some of the higher quality sources for fellow wikipedians to assess them. Thank you very much. Microtony 17:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Local newspapers:
- Tech magazines:
- Year book of a school:

References

Weak keep ... but I am dependent upon either the Government press releases being acceptable (e.g. see my comment above) in this context or Microtony's good faith interpretation of those resources to be acceptable and that they have content specifically to the Hong Kong Informatics Olympiad and not merely a passing mention within other Olympiad disciplines or the Internatioanl Olympiad for Informatics. I am however minded it is some implausible such resources would not exist and Microtony's location of the same seems reasonable. On an aside I must point out to the closer that due to interactions on other AfD's it may be felt my vote may be not neutral and biased .... above all I urge this should not reflect on Microtony whose COI declaration and conduct seem in good faith. Unfortunately the South China Morning Post does not seem to hold any not does The China Daily Post as far as I can tell. I guess my preference if an independent Wikipedian in Hong Kong could check. 23:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep per Microtony. The sources he quoted establish the existence of persistent coverage as required by WP:GNG. Full disclosure: am a former member of article subject --Deryck C. 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: WP:GNG doesn't say "persistent"; it says "significant". So we can't rely on WP:PRIMARYNEWS, press releases and interviews. If some article that is mentioned above contains third-party commentary outside of what I mentioned in my previous sentence, feel free to point it out. wumbolo ^^^ 19:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, WP:PRIMARYNEWS is only relevant to notability where the article is about a one-off event. For recurrent events, news coverage over multiple instances of the event (persistence) can add up to count as significant coverage. Deryck C. 16:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quick reply to Wumbolo above before I go to sleep. #4 and #14 are entirely third-party (interview of/article written by a school). Newspaper/magazine sources containing some commentary: #5.. source says (my translation) "... This kind of competition requires high level of problem solving and programming ability. Students has to have a lot of passion and solid experience in order to excel in the competition. There is nothing like this in Hong Kong...." #10: Subject was not involved in the direct interview with student. #12: (my translation) "... Good competitions uses daily live problems. For example, Google maps is like shortest path problem... Students has to solve problems quickly and correctly. The best solutions can process hundreds of thousands of paths or characters in a second. The level of difficulty is very high" #13: (my translation) "...This shows that the computational thinking ability of Hong Kong students are definitely not worse than overseas'" // Actually I found another source: (my translation) "...His tone is full of confidence. Trust that he will triumph again and win awards for Hong Kong.... 21st centuries females should not be looked-down upon. (name ommited) is the only representative to NOI this year... She is good but modest." - Microtony 21:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep two tech magazines (two independent sources, 3 articles) just scrapes GNG. Widefox; talk 22:20, 30 September 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) 00:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Grand Rapids FC women season

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

Despite the team winning its league championship this season, the article still fails WP:NSEASONS for two reasons. First, the team plays in United Women's Soccer, a Division II league in the United States, not a top professional league. Second, WP:NSEASONS says that "[t]eam season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose" [emphasis in original], and this article contains none of that. The lack of prose in the article causes it to run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, which is another reason to delete it if not rectified. This championship season ended more than 12 months ago, and no Wikipedian has made an effort to compose any significant prose describing it. It is questionable whether there is enough independent, reliable coverage from which information can be drawn to write enough prose that would make the article consist mainly of well-sourced prose. While there is some local media coverage, this is routine and not significant and fails to rise to the level needed to satisfy the presumption of notability under WP:GNG. That guideline indicates that even where an article achieves the presumption of notability, the results of a common-sense discussion should prevail. Common sense tells me that the 2017 season of the Grand Rapids FC women was not notable enough to merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. The source used for the statistics presented is What If It Rains, a site that describes itself as "an unofficial publication produced by supporters of Grand Rapids FC." Such a disclaimer raises doubt about the reliability of the source. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and points made on all previous nominations of GRFC seasons. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:19, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koka Booth

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

Commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Aberg Robison (2nd nomination) led me to consider assessing the notability of the mayors of Cary in addition to the city councillors I had already AfD'd (the other one was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marla Dorrel (2nd nomination)). In case anybody's curious about my workflow here, I came to Marla Dorrel by way of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, and from there took a look at Category:Cary Town Council members, and have now come to the sub-category Category:Mayors of Cary, North Carolina.

I have been unable to find sufficient independent reliable sourcing that would indicate Mr. Booth is particularly notable outside of Cary.

Comments and Conversations On the Growth of Cary, North Carolina, 1955-2015 looks substantial, but is a Lulu Press book, which means it's self-published with no editorial oversight, and can't be considered reliable
Architecture briefly discusses his role in the construction of the town's amphitheatre, but the focus appears to be on the theatre, not him.
Cognitive Rehabilitation for Neuropsychiatric Disorders and National Geographic mention him trivially, as in "Koka Booth of X says Y about Z".
Newspapers.com mostly includes trivial hits that mention performances at "Koka Booth Amphitheatre", and hits from local newspapers. Filtering out "North Carolina" and only picking papers from other states only shows "Koka Booth Amphitheatre" hits.

Overall the lack of non-local results confirms that Mr. Booth did not attract the kind of "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" required by WP:N in order to sustain an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cary NC is certainly large enough that a well-sourced and genuinely substantive article about a mayor could be kept, but it's neither large nor prominent enough that we would need to keep a poorly referenced stub that barely goes any further than stating that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 23:57, 30 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odeon Cinemas Group

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

Same organisation as Odeon Cinemas. Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to an entirely flawed nomination rationale. If it were true then this would be a speedy delete A10, but it isn't. The opening sentence of the alleged duplicate article says "Odeon is a cinema brand name operating in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Norway, which along with UCI Cinemas and Nordic Cinema Group is part of the Odeon Cinemas Group subsidiary of AMC Theatres". So at least two other cinema chains are in the group. SpinningSpark 13:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination is flawed, yes. This holding company just doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Almost every source is about it's subsidiary Odeon Cinemas or it's parent company AMC Theatres. There's not a lot of sources focused on the intermediate holding company, reflected in part by the fact the article is such a short stub. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles dont make it very clear what the relationship between the two entities is. But holding companies dont inherit notability from their parents or children. Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: Heres a basic overview. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Cinemas International

Odeon Cinemas

Finnkino

Forum Cinemas

I hope you are going to put this excellent chart into one of the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am convinced that we should keep this article, because without it the articles about the other parts of the group will not make sense. But it's always hard to find sources about these intermediate structures. Rathfelder (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is some reliable news reporting on changes of key people. Maybe also some coverage from when the company acquired its subsidiaries could be used. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRESERVE should be applied here. If there is not enough information for a standalone article, then redirect it to one of the associated articles. SpinningSpark 22:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article a little with some sources I found earlier. I also added the chart. It is better than it was. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Happy to withdraw my proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deb has already speedy deleted this page per WP:G11 a few hours ago, no reason to let this run any further. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North American Young Generation in Nuclear

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

Seems to be non-notable. A quick WP:BEFORE search brought up only passing mentions. The page had notability concerns raised way back in 2007, but was never brought to AfD, and nothing has changed to show that it passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Spammy article only there to promote the organisation. SpinningSpark 13:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11 all the way. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:10, 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) Kpg jhp jm 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HyperPhysics

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

Nonnotable educational website. The few secondary sources are either directory listings or simply lesson plans which include material from here. I can find no significant discussion about the site itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Who am I to judge about (non-)notability of this site?-especially, since being much too disinterested in WP's deletion behavior (besides the draft-hunt, it's rather the keeping that annoys me sometimes) to search for suitable rules and their state of satisfaction. Anyhow, if this gets deleted, I would cite another WP-editor:"That's why we can't have any nice things!" HyperPhysics is to me a "standard", when looking for some nice animation. Purgy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any actual policy-based rationale to keep in that rambling, incoherent mess other than WP:ILIKEIT? And as far as judging notability, if you feel unqualified to do so, then you shouldn't be participating in an AfD discussion, because that's exactly what they're for and what's expected of the participants. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to trigger concordant !votes, I expect that any closer will be able to correctly judge my !vote, I did not expect that I would trigger such an amount of toxic deprecation. Purgy (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:WEBCRIT. The website won the Merlot Classic Award for 2005 in Physics. Also, PSIgate (back when it was still a thing) thought HyperPhysics to be notable enough for inclusion [19] (PSIgate was the physical sciences hub of the RDN, a Jisc-funded initiative). I found some sources that discuss the website itself: [20], and more briefly: [21] [22]. The book The Geek Atlas and the textbook Physics Project Lab also briefly mention the website. Lots of popsci articles out there bring up the website by either citing it or suggesting it as further reading, so it's a pretty well-known website. Ahiijny (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good bit to respond to here, so bear with me. As for the award, I can't see that it qualifies as "major", and even if it did, that's secondary to sourcing issues. The PSIgate (link 1) indexing is irrelevant (apparently it's not even a thing anymore). Most important is if there exist multiple, in-depth, reliable sources about the site. Links 3 and 4 are utterly trivial mentions and don't contribute to notability or sourceability. The book mentions are equally trivial and don't discuss the site in any kind of depth. That just leaves link #2. This one is probably okay, barely. But that's just just one borderline source, and there just isn't enough here for an article. That's really what it comes down to, not how popular or useful the site is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep one of the most well-known physics sites out there, with loads of acknowledgements and recognition (see [23], bottom of the page). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it were obvious, I wouldn't have started an AfD. You're being a bit disingenuous with "loads of awards and recognition" too. And like I mentioned above, no matter how amazing the site is, if there don't exist sufficient sources to write an article about it, then none of that matters. (See there for more detail). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per Ahijny and HeadbombMaoGo (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To reiterate some of what I said in replies above, what this really comes down to is sourcing. Brief mentions of the "here's a great site with a bunch of material about physics" sort are irrelevant. Real in-depth sourcing just isn't there (but hey, if someone can find more, then great). Discounting all that, all that's been brought up is one barely reasonable source (which isn't even used in the article currently), and that's not enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's covered in the physics-education trade literature to a sufficient extent that notability is established and the current article could be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 1 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) 00:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Legislative Assembly bypolls, 2018

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

No Bypolls Editmanz 16:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination is correct; the by-elections were cancelled.[24] Number 5 7 11:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is never happening. Good find. More reasons why WP:FUTURE must be strictly followed. Such articles should not be created before the action has actually happened. cuz it may never happen as it was in this case. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not though; it's completely reasonable to create an article when a noteworthy election is scheduled – if it's cancelled (as happened here), we can simply delete it. The alternative is not to have any articles on elections until the day voting takes place, which would be absurd. Number 5 7 15:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is off topic as far as this AfD is concerned, but User:Number 57 please note the election was never scheduled. EC recommended disqualification and matter was settled in the court. the author clearly jumped the gun here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point re the scheduling. However, the "such articles should not be created before the action has actually happened" line still isn't applicable to normal election cycles (as opposed to by-elections), as it's always assumed that the next election will take place, hence why we have so many articles in Category:Future elections in Europe etc. Number 5 7 15:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If this is the precedent followed in the election articles then I can understand why this article was created. Still in my humble opinion, the declaration of the election should be the minimum requisite to create such an article. Thanks for sharing your kind thoughts. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 29 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable recordings of What'll I Do (song by Irving Berlin)

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

A list of "notable" items with no inclusion criteria, almost no sourcing, and a convoluted article title. Seems it was spun off from the parent article What'll I Do, but I don't think there's anything here that's worth merging back into there. I also don't think the article title is useful as a search term to warrant a redirect. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT even if it can be shown that this is a notable subject for a list, which is dubious. The vast majority of items on the list say nothing at all about the recording. They just give a link to the artist's article, which also, in the vast majority of cases says nothing about the song. Possibly all of them, I can't be asked to check them all. SpinningSpark 13:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. We don't have 'notable' in the title of articles because of its subjective definition. The most important ones can be merged back to the song title article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge back to What'll I Do. To the extent this information can be sourced, it belongs in the main article about the song, not a separate article. Most of it is currently unsourced, however. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, it's just not that good of a subject. I mean, who would really want a list of "notable" recordings of one song? Could be for Wikidata though, at least, to my understanding. --9563rj (talk) 19:28, 1 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. A clear consensus has emerged for keeping. Michig (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Cutler

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

Poorly written article with issues. Twice–failed candidate for public office who never once held an elected position; has been out of politics for years. Fails WP:NPOL/WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 05:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 07:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 07:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete only real notability is he two elections in which he was a failed candidate. I would probably redirect this to the 2010 election, where he was an important factor. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's running again, so he could be considered a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He declined to run again in 2018 since he's in his 70s and didn't win the first two times. He worked to recruit independents for the 2018 elections, but that's not a candidate status. (see his page for details on this) Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 00:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Perennial candidate" doesn't satisfy any Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clearly non-notable candidate. Very rarely does being a candidate make one notable, generally one has to win.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 17.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. non-notable candidate. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Oppel, Richard A., Jr. (1991-10-27). "Lawyer chops airports down to size". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  The article is a 2,525-word profile of the subject. The article notes:
  The article discusses his work in the Jimmy Carter US presidential administration:
2. Poore, Chris (1996-11-15). "Council's Airport Consultant Candidate Is Controversial". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
  The article later notes:
3. Carnahan, Ann; Hubbard, Burt (1995-02-05). "Flying Blind Into a Mountain of Debt the Untold Story of How Denver Hitched Its Destiny to DIA and Closed Its Eyes to a Gathering Storm of Doubt". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
4. Camia, Catalina (1989-10-16). "Cities' attorney in D/FW fight has record of success". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
5. "Gubernatorial candidate profile: Eliot Cutler, independent". Bangor Daily News. 2010-09-19. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
6. Russell, Eric (2014-09-14). "The working life of Eliot Cutler: The independent, a protege of Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie, has amassed a wealth of experience in business and law". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
7. Russell, Eric (2014-07-13). "The Early Years: Eliot Cutler. The son of a Bangor doctor and a community-minded mom, the gubernatorial candidate developed an early passion for success and service, and a desire to give back to his home state". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-09-30. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
  The article notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eliot Cutler to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 17#Eliot Cutler participants who have not commented here: Namiba (talk · contribs), R. fiend (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Alpha3031 (talk · contribs), Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs), Enos733 (talk · contribs), and Doncram (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I said at the deletion review. " For a losing major party candidate for a position like this, there will always be enough press, and it's time we just accepted the articles. " I think Cunard has shown that for this example. .Similar careful work at other articles of this sort would probably show this also. It's unfortunately one of the things I no longer have patience to do myself, but know that I ought to. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election can always show "enough press" to at least try to claim that they've passed WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from actually having to pass WP:NPOL. So no, it's not "time we just accepted the articles" — doing so would simply vitiate Wikipedia having any notability standards for politicians at all, and require us to keep an article about every single person who was ever a candidate for anything. Wikipedia: the repository of useless campaign brochures for people of no ongoing interest that anybody can game. #NotWhatWeAspireToBe. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to rewrite notability policy. WP:BASIC is clear that SNGs like NPOL are meant to be additional ways of being notable, and not to establish a higher bar than GNG:People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.

And on the merits, #WhatWeAspireTo is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Democratic political history—who is running or has run for this position? what is/was their platform? how was it received? how have observers of this political scene characterized their importance?—is a very important and useful kind of knowledge for citizens of a democracy, as well as for future historians. (I don't know if you've ever done historical research, but you can probably imagine how useful it would be to have a repository in the digital archive summarizing and collecting the metadata of mainstream contemporary political reporting on, say, what people in Abraham Lincoln's Illinois House district thought about his 1837 "free soil" positions.)

Note also WP:NOTPAPER—including more articles doesn't require us to give up others. We should determine notability by whether it's possible to write a policy-compliant article on a subject, not whether we think the subject is especially important or worthy. FourViolas (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient RS sourcing about the subject's two campaigns to warrant an article (and because there are two campaigns, there is not a single redirect target). To be clear, the subject was not a major party candidate in either 2010 or 2014, and ran as an independent both times. In addition to the subject's career in politics, there are a handful of articles about his work within the Maine University system. --Enos733 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As myself and others argued elsewhere, there are more than a sufficient number of in-depth and non-trivial sources covering Eliot Cutler.--TM 21:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maine gubernatorial election, 2010. As nom, I notice that there is coverage of him, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He is really only known for the election, so it could be merged to a Background of Candidates section there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebekah Kennedy for a similar result. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the ample independent sources linked to both above and in Deletion Review?--TM 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Redditaddict. I don't think he would be notable as an attorney - his notability comes from the fact he ran as an independent in that election, and we can update the article there to reflect the coverage he received. SportingFlyer talk 23:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough non-trivial sources to merit a page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage, as a major candidate in two gubernatorial elections. The basic purpose of the policy on candidates is to prevent articles on people who get 2% of the vote, and also-rans in minor elections, which doesn't apply here. He got over 200,000 votes and was endorsed by most of the major newspapers in the state. We aren't deleting Wendell Wilkie's article because he lost, and we have plenty of articles on people who ran and lost races for less significant offices, who got a small fraction of the votes he got (Zephyr Teachout for one). His candidacy twice helped elect the most sorry excuse for a lump of human shit to be elected governor in a lifetime. People will want information on what was behind that, and how an independent candidate beat the Democrat by such a margin, in more detail than would be covered in an article on that election (as well as the following one in which he got a much smaller percentage of the vote, but enough to be reasonably labelled a spoiler). To that end this article could use significant expansion, not deletion. -R. fiend (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R. fiend: I see so many things wrong with this.

1. What policy says candidates who get over 2% of the vote are notable? See WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Henry Baber and the one I mentioned earlier, WP:Articles for deletion/Rebekah Kennedy.

2. 200,000 votes is nothing – Again, see Rebekah Kennedy's deletion discussion. Typically, state newspapers, while they count towards WP:GNG, aren't sufficient.

3. Wendell Wilkie is a famous person and major party nominee that went head-to-head with FDR, receiving the highest EV count of all of FDR's opponents. This argument has nothing to do with Cutler - comparing a major party nominee for President vs. an Independent candidate for a state governorship. The 'many articles' we have on lost candidates are notable for reasons outside of their candidacy, such as Lois Combs Weinberg, Robert Kelleher, Richard Ziser, and Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, all of which survived deletion discussions.

4. Your final comment is solely about the candidacy is just about the candidacy. That can be merged to the article itself, similarly to the Redirect+Merge with Rebekah Kennedy's discussion. A single candidacy does not make an article notable. See WP:Articles for deletion/Naomi Andrews, WP:Articles for deletion/Joe Manchik, WP:Articles for deletion/Tony Campbell (Maryland politician), WP:Articles for deletion/Shawn Moody, WP:Articles for deletion/Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)... among the dozens of other failed 2018-election-cycle candidates whose pages were merged onto the page of the election that they were known for.

There is nothing wrong with you supporting a keep, but mention policies and guidelines that he passes with examples before stating all of this information.
Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with a merge or redirect is that there are two valid election targets. --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And he was far more recognized for the 2010 election. Just like Ross Perot is more known for 1992 than 1996. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I initially wasn't sure as he is only notable for the two Maine gubernatorial elections however a quick Google search provides a large amount of sources that seem to support his notability as a former Independent candidate for office. In the WP:NPOL criteria it states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are "presumed to be notable". Whilst Cutler never held office, he came a close second and in the process is still written about in articles such as this in CNN, as well has having received attention even in this Washington Post article during the 2014 election despite his ultimate failure in the race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about merge: A merge is not appropriate because Eliot Cutler was notable before the two gubernatorial elections he was a candidate for.
The two elections:
1. Maine gubernatorial election, 2010
2. Maine gubernatorial election, 2014
He received significant coverage before 2010:
1. A 27 October 1991 article in Fort Worth Star-Telegram is a 2,525-word profile of him. It notes, "the practice [Cutler] and Jeffrey L. Stanfield inaugurated a decade ago has become the most sought-after legal team in the nation for counsel on airport growth issues".
  It also notes that at age 30, Cutler was "named associate director of the Office of Management and Budget" (OMB) for the Jimmy Carter presidential administration which made him "one of the highest-ranking staffers in OMB". His work at the OMB involved "drafting budgets for the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Department of the Interior and other offices".
2. An 11 November 1996 article in Lexington Herald-Leader notes that Cutler "is by most accounts an expert on airport issues" and "Cutler made national headlines over the last decade as he represented six cities and neighbors surrounding Denver's old Stapleton International Airport".
3. A 16 October 1989 article in The Dallas Morning News notes, "To some of his opponents, Washington attorney Eliot R. Cutler is a modern-day holdup man -- a Jesse James who snatches major concessions for clients who fight airport developments." And "Because of Mr. Cutler's national reputation, officials in Grapevine, Irving and Euless have pooled their resources to hire his law firm in their fight against a proposed $3.5 billion expansion for Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport."
Cunard (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I commented in the deletion review, including about sources. Sources in article plus sources in deletion review, and probably more sources here, show obviously meets wp:GNG. Obviously can't be merged away to just one of the articles about gubernatorial elections too. We need to have one article to link to from multiple places where Eliot Cutler is appropriately mentioned. I see mention of Ross Perot, above; yes this is comparable. --Doncram (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would impoverish numerous existing mainspace articles to delete Wikipedia's article about Cutler. Inbound links to Eliot Cutler article come from the following mainspace articles (in just the first page of 50 hits from "what links here"):
- Spoiler effect ‎ (links | edit)
- Piscataquis County, Maine ‎ (links | edit)
- Cape Elizabeth, Maine‎ (links | edit)
- Angus King‎ (links | edit)
- Portland Press Herald ‎ (links | edit)
- United States gubernatorial elections, 2010 ‎ (links | edit)
- Maine gubernatorial election, 2010‎ (links | edit)
- Libby Mitchell ‎ (links | edit)
- Dennis Damon ‎ (links | edit)
- Rosa Scarcelli ‎ (links | edit)
- Paul LePage ‎ (links | edit)
- Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton ‎ (links | edit)
- United States gubernatorial elections, 2014 ‎ (links | edit)
- Edward Suslovic ‎ (links | edit)
- Roberto Bernardi ‎ (links | edit)
- Rodney S. Quinn ‎ (links | edit)
- Maine gubernatorial election, 2014 ‎ (links | edit)
- Patrick Flood ‎ (links | edit)
- United States gubernatorial elections, 2018 ‎ (links | edit)
- Maine gubernatorial election, 2018 ‎ (links | edit)
- United States Senate election in Maine, 2018 ‎ (links | edit)

To take one example, the article about Maine politician Patrick Flood mentions, as something significant about Flood, that "Flood endorsed independent Eliot Cutler in the 2014 Maine gubernatorial election." Rather than having a sentence or two or three at the Flood page to explain who is Cutler, it is efficient, editorially, to cover Cutler in a separate article.

There are more inbound links on the next page of 50 hits from "what links here".

--Doncram (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly I'm surprised that this discussion is ongoing. This guy is probably more "notable" than 90% of those people who do have Wikipedia articles, without even considering any candidacy for office. It seems that candidacy in itself is perversely being used to discredit the actual notability of subject who clearly would be notable if they never imagined they might run for anything. Activist (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC and doesn't fall into an WP:NOT or WP:AVOIDVICTIM categories; that's good enough. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS enshrined in the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES does not overrule the general notability guideline. FourViolas (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Like others, I'm surprised this nomination is ongoing: Cutler has had an immense impact on Maine politics through his historically significant independent run the first time, through spoilering Democratic candidates and allowing a far-right governor to win in Maine twice, and causing such upheaval that Maine actually changed their entire system of voting in a US first so the issues Cutler caused couldn't happen again. The coverage on him is immense. This is the perfect example of why, although unsuccessful candidates are usually not-notable, an attitude of "shoot any and all unelected candidates" leads to ridiculous outcomes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources, spanning a period of several years. Examples include those now in the article and cited above, plus: (1) "Eliot Cutler", Maine: The Magazine, June 2011; (2) "Cutler officially launches campaign for Maine governor", Associated Press, 9/25/13; (3) "Independent Eliot Cutler just helped Democrats in the Maine governor’s race. Sort of", The Washington Post, 10/29/14; (4) "Eliot Cutler: 'No bromance' between me and Paul LePage", MSNBC, 11/9/14; and (5) "Eliot Cutler resigns as head of UMaine System graduate center", 8/31/17. Cbl62 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a strong advocate for the proposition that the vast majority of unelected candidates for political office are not notable and should not have Wikipedia biographies. Cutler is an exception to that general rule. He has been a public figure for over 40 years, received signigicant coverage as an official of the Jimmy Carter administration and is a leading expert in legal cases involving airport construction and expansion. His candidacies in Maine were not simple "he ran and lost" stories but were pivotal in the election victories of Paul LePage, a highly controversial figure on the national political scene. This is another example of the importance of well-informed editorial judgment in making deletion decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 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 delete. Besides one editor's support for a merge, all other policy-based arguments support deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mamas

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This person is non-notable, there are not any notable sources in the article and 95% of the sources are self created. The article was created by a now blocked, single purpose, IP whose only edits were to create articles on Michael Mamas and his organizations. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough evidence in my view for significant notability. Promotional-style article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: TV Asia owner Gowri Goli posted on Youtube his Television broadcasts about Michael Mamas and Mount Soma on his TV Asia Television network, which certainly is notability. There is no copyright problem, because Goli himself posted his broadcasts on Youtube. See them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAEZvqCk29g and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBO15Wc_HTc Also, search Michael Mamas Huffington Post to see that Mamas writes for the Huffington Post, a major publication certainly very notable, as well as other publications cited in Mamas' Wikipedia article. Also, Mamas is the Founder of the internationally notable Mount Soma. Mamas' books are also carried by Barnes and Noble and Amazon. Do not delete please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.190.53 (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I manage the Mount Soma Visitor Center, and I know Michael Mamas to be a notable person. Mount Soma is a mountain community, and meditation retreat center with Vedic Temple, founded by Michael Mamas. Every year, tens of thousands of people visit Mount Soma, and thousands of people from many states and a few different countries request to meet him in person. Most years he is able to meet with several hundred of them. This includes meeting with busloads of visitors traveling great distances, and classes of students from local schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehmke (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Dehmke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete: I volunteer for the Center of Rational Spirituality. I think it is worth mentioning that though Michael Mamas has been teaching and writing for over 35 years, his overall focus has been on his classes, programs, and humanitarian projects (such as building Mount Soma), rather than getting published or interviewed, or gaining widespread recognition. He frequently receives requests for interviews by visitors to Mount Soma, and most often turns them down. Still, there are a number of interviews and featured lectures (listed in references below ) and third-party publications that may help illustrate his notability:

41 articles published on Entrepreneur.com (2015-2017) as a Guest Writer.
12 articles published on ElephantJournal.com (2015-2017).
47 articles published on HuffingtonPost.com (2015-2017).

Joyannajah (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Joyannajah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete:I have studied with Michael Mamas for 20 years now and have traveled from Texas so study with him at the community of Mount Soma in North Carolina, in San Francisco and San Diego. He has an international following as some of his blog articles have been translated and published in German (my original language) and Chinese. In my opinion, there is no comparable teacher of meditation and enlightenment techniques living today. Even when I reread one of his many published books, the living wisdom contained therein always strikes me as new and fresh. You would be doing the world a disservice by deleting this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckles1957 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Chuckles1957 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete Michael Mamas started The School for Enlightenment and Healing 25 years ago. Since that time, he founded the nonprofit, The Center of Rational Spirituality, as well as two additional nonprofits. I have been a student of Michael Mamas for over 19 years and there were six of us who traveled from Fairbanks, Alaska to California as well as North Carolina to take classes and participate in meditation retreats where he was teaching. I was there when Michael Mamas, along with his founders, purchased a 448-acre piece of property and with his vision and drive, turned it into a viable, vibrant spiritual community that many travel long distances to visit. I watched as the community that started with one home and a Visitor Center on dirt roads, now has the very popular Sri Somesvara Temple, a Student Union, visitor housing and parking, four parks and various hiking trails. And this is just one of Michael Mamas’s notable accomplishments which he should continue to be recognized for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLHerbi (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — CLHerbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete:I first heard Michael Mamas speak in 2009. I was so inspired by the talk that I have since been attending his classes, and retreats. I live in Oregon and travel to both San Francisco and Clyde, North Carolina to attend the classes. Michael Mamas is a profound teacher whose contribution to helping others is endless. He has volunteered so much of his time via articles, books, lectures, and videos. His wisdom goes beyond notable and at the very least, he deserves an entry for people to discover all that he has accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindyinbend (talk • contribs) 04:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet general notability guidelines and a Google News search only turned up one article, thereby failing WP:SIGCOV. The coverage is simply not enough, despite the outpours of support from all these SPA accounts. Deletion discussion are not votes, and there simply isn't enough encyclopedic content for the subject to warrant his own article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote 47 articles for the Huffington Post! That is notability. 47.201.190.53 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete:Wikipedia has notability guidelines, but that should not cause less popular but more highly evolved spiritual teachers to be hidden from view. In my personal experience, Michael Mamas is up there with notable teachers such as Joko Beck, Bodhin Kjolhede, and Mata Amritanandamayi but has a better ability to simultaneously demystify, and bring the consciousness of those around him toward, the transcendent. This is why I count myself as part of his devoted following.Clifliu (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC) — Clifliu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mamas has been repeatedly featured on worldwide television by TV Asia.47.201.190.53 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteDr Michael Mamas is a world renowned spiritual teacher who has authored many books and has had numerous articles published on Huffington Post, Entrepreneur, and Elephant Journal. He has been featured on national televised broadcasts in India. He is the founder of the Center for Rational Spirituality, and has established the Mount Soma spiritual community. Mount Soma is a premier destination for those of the Hindu religion, and hosts an enormous number of visitors from all over the world. It is a thriving community dedicated to fostering an ideal environment for spiritual growth. Dr Michael Mamas had one of the most sought after healing practices in the United States, which at that time was booked out with a three year waiting list. Once he turned his attention towards passing on his knowledge, Dr Michael Mamas was considered as one of the top two hands on healing teachers in the United States. I believe that these qualifications, and considering his impact in the fields of healing and spirituality, more than justify a wikipedia page dedicated to Dr Michael Mamas.Geoff-El (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I believe Michael Mamas meets the notability requirements necessary to maintain a page here. He is the founder of Mount Soma and Sri Somesvara Temple, of which he has been interviewed about both locally in North Carolina on PBS and internationally in India . He has also been featured in renowned Vedic astrologer Sanjay Rath's publication Jyotish Digest . Epietryk (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE

Michal Mamas is a notable person. In the mid 1990's I became a student of his. He was one of the top 2 teachers of hands on healing. I've taken classes with him in NY, CA, RI, and Texas. Since then I have been studying spirituality and meditation with him at Mount Soma in Clyde , NC. A spiritual community he began.He built Sri Somevesara at Mount Soma. Thousands of Indians travel each year to visit and picnic while enjoying the peace and serenity of mount Soma. Michael Mamas has written books about Hands on healing, spirituality, enlightenment and relationship. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, Entrepreneur, and the Elephant Journal. I am still a student of his and never tire of the way he works with his students. He is truly a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.205.115 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETEIn my view, Michael Mamas is a notable person. He has spent the last 25 years teaching and developing a community that is unique. One dedicated to a grand vision of global peace, understanding and harmony. He has lectured around the country and authored several books. I believe his teaching and guidance hold promise for a better life for many people and that the public would be better served if his work was more widely known. The public is deserving of at least being aware of him and his work. I have studied with Mr. Mamas since 1994 and visit his community regularly. 64.223.13.39 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He writes extensively for the Huffington Post. He has been repeatedly featured on worldwide television by TV Asia, as well as WEDU PBS Television. That is notability by any normal person's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.190.53 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETEI have been a student of Michael Mamas for 10 years, and he provides a profound level of teaching and knowledge that is just not available everywhere. The world is in great need of his rare teachings and his relevance is continuing to expand, and will lead to empowering contributions to all of humanity. No matter the field of endeavor, popularity does not equal relevance. For example, the greatest musicians of our time, who embodied music and soulfully shared their craft have far less searches and views than the new popular band, however have had far more of an impact on music as a whole.

Michael Mamas has dedicated his whole life to attaining truth and shares that knowledge constantly though his numerous books, classes, blogs and Mount Soma. Many popular teachings come and go, few will last the test of time. May we all continue to embrace and celebrate those precious teachings that for sure will last the test of time. Michael Mamas teachings are timeless.

DO NOT DELETE I have studied with Michael Mamas for 17 years. The incredible things he has taught has changed my life. The pure healing coming from words and hands on healing have released the pain in the muscles in my body. From his classes my attitude towards life has changed to the point, people and customers tell me I am much kinder person. The school at Mt Soma has people from all over the world attending classes. The meditation hall's atmosphere promotes quiet and deep meditation. The student union building and cafeteria allow students to attend classes and allows great student interaction. I have read 6 of his books and have found the Huffington Post and Elephant Journal blogs interesting, helpful and different perspective on current issues. I have traveled to 3 different CA and N. Carolina locations to listen to his talks. This man in an incredible speaker and healer. Michael Mamas has dedicated his life to helping others and to healing our planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.115.13 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some claims of notability have been made by IP users but I am not convinced enough to close this. Giving it some more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When this discussion is closed, it really should be archived as the most obvious example of canvassing ever. Juxlos (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have some Wikipedia namespace page for stuff like this? Vermont (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though this is a forgone conclusion as there are no independent sources about the subject. Valeince (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The PBS coverage that has been mentioned is a weekly program on local tourist attractions produced by a local public television affiliate; the particular episode has a segment on Mount Soma in between discussion of The Hen and the Hog Restaurant and the French Broad Chocolate Lounge (note the redlinks), which barely contributes to the notability of Mount Soma, let alone Michael Mamas. Ditto for the TV Asia segments. The subject of the New Indian Express article on "Vedic Disneyland" is again Mount Soma, and worse, it is essentially a republished press-release. None of the other sources mentioned (Jyotish Digest, Awareness Magazine, web-forums etc) qualify as reliable sources.

As far as consideration as a author goes, the books are published by really obscure publishers (likely self-published), hardly stocked by libraries, and I didn't find any reviews in reliable media. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Vermont (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mount Soma which seems to meet the notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Schjolin

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

Declined a speedy request, but a good faith search isn't turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability. Hits are passing mentions and two articles about CrystalRoc. Is this enough? --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched extensively and can find nothing that would count towards WP:GNG. The article makes many claims, all unreferenced, but nothing much can be found to support anything. Edwardx (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being involved with 3 Eurovision songs gives some claim to notability. I'm giving the discussion some time if better sources can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms (Danish: Morten Schjølin):

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

Delete. I added a ref, but that's about all I can find on him, and we are not near WP:BASIC or any of the other, specific guidelines in NBIO. Sam Sailor 21:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and like other editors I can't find any more reliable sources. The admin's point about Eurovision involvement is valid, but needs to be looked at closely. Mr. Schjolin neither wrote nor produced "Every Song Is a Cry for Love" at the contest, nor the original recorded version – he just produced the radio remix. The 2003 and 2008 UK songs were entries for the selection process, but not the final songs chosen to represent the country at the contest. So the only notable Eurovision entry that he was involved in was the Scooch song, and there are no in-depth sources detailing his involvement in it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marstacimab

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

not yet approved drug. no evidence of any practical human use. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Toosoon, the failure rate for new drugs is incredibly high, so lets wait until it is on sale or close. Szzuk (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing in pubmed at all - not even primary sources. (search). Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 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. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Davis (businessman)

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

Have given the promotional wording a NPOV makeover. Am struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources in the article or online. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Famous father, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes as there are clearly reputable, notable and reliable sources in the article from The Wall Street Journal, Billboard, Variety, ESPN and others. A basic web search sees an article on subject from Marketwatch today. Subject seems easily noteworthy and renown separate from family ties. GaryFromGary (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after removing the spam, trivia, unsourced matters, BLP violations, and nonsense, I could determine that he's probably notable. If I were still an admin, I would consider long-term monitoring or protection. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the given references. Where is Doug significantly covered by an independent, reliable source? Dial911 (talk) 02:31, 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 06:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable given accomplishments referenced in article, even moreso given current independant news stories on political album just release he apparently produced. ChocolateBabkaGirl (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Editor who flagged edits primarily billionaires. While Doug is not apparently billionaire, he is obviously notable given sourcing. KnittingQueenKY (talk) 12:56, 29 September 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 somewhere. It's clear that this shouldn't stay as a dab page. It should be redirected to either Russian Greek Catholic Church or Catholic Church in Russia, but I don't see any consensus which of those should be the primary, and which should hatnote the other. Since this clearly isn't going to end up deleting the page, the details can be worked out on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything, but rather merely lists a topic, and its own subtopic, as evidenced by the fact that the subtopic, Russian Greek Catholic Church, is already discussed in Catholic Church in Russia indicating its status as a subsidiary body of the latter. There is nothing here that can not be resolved in a hatnote. bd2412 T 23:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because one topic is a subtopic of another doesn't necessarily mean that an ambiguous term couldn't be appropriately directed at either the topic or the subtopic, nor that the main topic is inherently the most likely target of the ambiguous term. @CAPTAIN RAJU: In this case what are you suggesting as the primary topic, and why do you think it more likely? --Bejnar (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Russian Catholic Church is a longstanding redirect to Russian Greek Catholic Church (which was originally at Russian Catholic Church, until it was moved in 2012); that status has never since been disputed. Even if the there were no primary topic between the two, that would not make the term ambiguous; rather, it would make it necessary to create a WP:DABCONCEPT article to explain the relationship between the terms, because such a relationship exists. Disambiguation pages list unrelated topics that coincidentally share the same name. Of course, if the DABCONCEPT function could be fulfilled in one of the existing articles, that would be the most efficient solution for readers, who would ideally generally find the information they need where the concept is explained.bd2412 T 03:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Church in Russia, a hatnote is fine. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Eddie891 and bd2412 seem to be at odds as to which is the primary topic. At least bd2412 gave a reason for the choice; and absent a compelling reason from Eddie891, I think we should go with Russian Greek Catholic Church as primary, especially if it is edited so that the DABCONCEPT function is fulfilled in that article. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar From what bd2412 said, I got the impression that Russian Greek Catholic Church is a subtopic of Catholic Church in Russia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a "see also" section hatnote to Russian Greek Catholic Church at Catholic Church in Russia#Russian Byzantine Catholic Church. Clearly there is some relationship between the topics, rather than mere ambiguity from the coincidence of sharing a name. bd2412 T 16:05, 30 September 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) 00:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Grand Rapids FC season

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

Mirroring the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Grand Rapids FC season (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Grand Rapids FC women season: This article contains no prose outside of the lede, and as the team competed in the National Premier Soccer League (a non-WP:FPL), the page fails WP:NSEASONS. The lack of prose also causes a failure of WP:NOTSTATS. In addition, the references are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE, therefore leading to a failure of WP:GNG. The article's first deletion nomination resulted in a Procedural keep. 21.colinthompson (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 11:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these soccer seasons are good pages but despite having decent arguments to keep the 2018 season it was deleted anyway. Any argument to keep this page is probably futile so I won't bother. Kmitten (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would change my vote, if someone could demonstrate that there was significant coverage of the team's 2017 season and then went ahead and used that to write prose about it. Right now, there is no article; the encyclopedia entry is merely a collection of statistics organized into tables. It seems the passion associated with keeping these Grand Rapids encyclopedia entries far outpaces the passion that might drive someone to turn them into legitimate articles. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again fails NSeasons, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:50, 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) 00:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andres De Abreu

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as there is no evidence that he ever actually played for Deportivo Italia. Also, the page is a disaster of WP:PROMO that appears to have been originally written by ~~a club employee~~ Drew Rosenhaus, the player's agent, and the player isn't mentioned in the vast majority of the references, meaning the page fails WP:GNG as well. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious that this article has been written by someone looking to promote the player, but he fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 11:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find on him is this gem: [25] Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer talk 08:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable soccer player who also fails the GNG. Article also has a COI problem.Sandals1 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable amateur/semi-pro footballer. The article contains a claim that he once played for Deportivo Italia in Venezuela [or perhaps Centro Italo], but I can't find anything to support that claim, and if he indeed played for Centro Italo it wouldn't have been in the Primera Division. Cannot verify that the article passes NFOOTY and it doesn't satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundry (comics)

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

Neither character mentioned her meets WP:GNG: the main character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia, and the character mentioned in the notes appears twice. The page is linked by two articles and a list. Nothing would be lost by deleting this article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: F or Mandarin (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. —Mythdon 05:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is quite frankly nothing TO merge from the article. This is not Wikia, therefore it requires SOME kind of valid source and notability, even if it was added to a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list of characters is not meant to be exhaustive. It's a place to put characters who are not independently notable, but are notable within the fiction. This character doesn't qualify. Mandarin (comics) doesn't mention the character, so redirecting would not useful. Merging isn't practical, since the Mandarin article is already tagged for being too plot heavy. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Argento. If Mandrain's Avenger's are somehow not deleted, I'd support a redirect there. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there's no sourced content, so there's nothing to merge. Reyk _YO! 07:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. If there is not enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources for even a short section, then I am uncertain if a merge would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 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. Tone 17:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Woerz

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

Non-notable singer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-As stated, google news does show multiple independent sources (thought they are not highly credible). Other editors may please review and suggest. (Exploreandwrite (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on one hand, she has toured nationally, one factor to show notability (assuming they're true), but on the other hand, there are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist . No !votes to gain consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – It appears that about half of the sources (at least) are promo; article also appears to be promo. Absolutely no reason this article is needed here – doesn't pass any notability guidelines that apply (WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICs). Nom is correct that this is WP:TOOSOON. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her best song on youtube has 40 million views, second best 20 million, that is a lot. The refs and article give the impression she's a nobody but that isn't the case, I was half way to writing delete myself. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per at-least-modest coverage: [26] [27] [28] wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Freudenberg

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Distiguished professors at reputable schools are automatically notable under WP:NACADEMIC#5. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah yes good point. Will withdraw.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 30 September 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) Matt14451 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake Duck

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

Per WP:NAD. Neologism that was used for a short time and got some coverage. Most of this is about Internet celebrities. The Oxford dictionary quote should tell you everything about this - "did not consider usage of the neologism to be sufficiently long-lived or widespread to warrant inclusion in their dictionaries". The fact that the word was used in a podcast is deemed relevant to this article should also tell you a lot about the notability of the term. RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and has received a fair amount of ongoing coverage. See some source examples below; more sources exist in addition to these examples. Furthermore, it was Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year and is included in the Macquarie Dictionary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year, 'milkshake duck', sums up the social media era. Business Insider
Macquarie Dictionary's 2017 Word of the Year. SBS.
What is a milkshake duck? And why isn't it the word of the year?. The Guardian.
'Milkshake Duck' is the perfect word of the year for 2017. Mashable.
How a Joke Becomes a Meme: The Birth of ‘Milkshake Duck’. The New York Times.
Milkshake Duck: what it is, and why it’s coming for us all. Vox.
Milkshake duck: The Australian word that went 'universal'. BBC.
The best 'milkshake ducks' of recent history. Newshub.
A Conversation with the Guy Who Invented the Milkshake Duck Meme. Esquire.

Obvious keep - You do realize that there were more than 160,000 page views to this page in the past year, with some significant spikes. Check the activity graph to see it is no fringe term and that people are actively going to Wikipedia to read about this. [29]. I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting. So you're not a fan of them, but how does BBC World Service coverage sound then? (What is Milkshake Duck, BBC Wolrd Service, 17 Dec 2017) Look at the list of the references, which includes New York Times and ABC News, and you'll see this is very well covered. It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion when it clearly meets notability guidelines and has extensive reliable source coverage. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure why being "used in a podcast" is some type of pejorative when nearly every major news outlet today is engaged in podcasting."

Someone briefly mentioning a term in one shouldn't be noted.

"It's unclear why you're pursuing this particular deletion"

Really? I cited a particular guideline. It's not a dictionary. RoseCherry64 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it to be a term, rather than a simple dictionary definition and nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Northamerica1000 said. And you cited one specific guideline while ignoring the greater encyclopedic nature of the term. It's more than just a WP:DICDEF - it's a phenomenon that is being explored in multiple reliable news outlets. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"greater encyclopedic nature" Most of the coverage is about some controversy related to Tim Soret, a minor video game developer who doesn't even have his own article. It mentions in passing Elon Musk's "pedo guy" comments which have been widely covered, with one reference. I cannot find a single other reference calling Elon Musk a "milkshake duck" in press. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing cherry-picked issues without an evaluation of the whole picture. Let's just let the !vote chips fall where they may. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Fuzhead and Northamerica1000.--Jorm (talk) 15:23, 29 September 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.