Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 2

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. Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porthemmet Beach hoax

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

"News of the weird" type story that got coverage for a few days; no enduring notability or significance. Article was created by blocked sock of hoax originator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this meaningless promotional mess. --Lockley (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received both significant and sustained coverage that meets the requirements. It might be a 'slow news week' puff piece, but that doesn't change the fact that people were still writing articles solely about it over a year later - and as recently as last year it received its own section in a local article^[1] -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was mistakenly posted for the January 2 period. I have relisted it to ensure it is not lost.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no enduring notability. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is unanimity amongst the commentators that this article fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Newland (cricketer)

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

The subject has not played in any first-class matches, as claimed in the article (there was no first-class cricket in the 1740s), leaving us with some info that he was the middle brother of two cricketers, and the uncle of another. Being related to these guys doesn't imply notability. Fails WP:CRIN and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited from Richard Newland - who I can see a case for keeping. There's probably a case for bundling Adam Newland in with this as well for precisely the same reasons. Fails GNG - we'll not be able to get anything very much that's not related to his brother. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one minor match does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Looking through Google Books I can find some fairly significant coverage in the book Sussex cricket in the eighteenth century: "John+Newland"+cricketer&dq="John+Newland"+cricketer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj199_0v9_fAhUKFogKHechAJEQ6AEIJjAA A mention to him also exists in "john+newland"+"cricketer"&dq="john+newland"+"cricketer"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-kIj3wN_fAhUO7mEKHYcTDvcQ6AEIPDAE (which interestingly says something about one of his brothers probably being an uncle). There's a bit in a whole lot of books when you dig, yet nothing quite enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Redirection isn't possible due to the disambiguator. If anyone can dig further than me that would be great. P.S. Apparently he was the captain at some point too. If this article does survive (which I severely doubt) it could use some beefing up. –J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The page about Adam Newland has been PRODed (not by me). J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a valid claim of notability it seems. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Regarding Wikiquote, the page mentioned in the comments is for the film, whereas the quotes on this "article" are from the TV series. If anyone wants the deleted text from this page for creation of a new Wikiquote page about the TV series, you can request a copy from an administrator. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pappy Maverick quotes

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

Quote pages are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it belongs on Wikiquote. – The Grid (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Ajf773 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTQUOTE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikiquote:Maverick (film), then delete. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Everybody agrees that this is a notable topic. The only question is whether it's sufficiently distinct from Languages of India as to require two separate articles, or if a single article can cover the topic adequately. I don't see any clear answer to that question, so for now, we'll keep both. Editors can continue to discuss this on the talk pages. Should a consensus develop that a single article is sufficient, a merge can be performed as a normal part of editorial discretion. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingualism in India

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

All the information in this article is in Languages of India, making this article unnecessarily redundant. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is clearly notable, but the current article, with nothing but census data, doesn't quite do it justice. You could either keep the article as is, hoping someone will eventually expand it, or merge it into Languages of India#Multilingualism. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is definitely notable, but this article is really only a stub, and does not cover any of the aspects of multilingualism in India which have been described in scholarly books and articles for decades, eg Multilingualism in India (Multilingual Matters, 1990) [2]; Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and Linguistic Manifestations (SAGE Publications, 2001) [3]; chapter 'Multilingualism in India' in Studies in Multilingualism (Brill, 1969) [4]; A Multilingual Nation: Translation and Language Dynamic in India (Oxford University Press, 2017) [5]; The Ecology of Language in Multilingual India: Voices of Women and Educators in the Himalayan Foothills (Springer, 2017) [6]; etc. I suggest tagging it for expert attention from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Applied. I note that the topic has been rated Top Importance for the WikiProject India, and High Importance for WikiProject Languages. As it hasn't been added to any Linguistics WikiProjects, it hasn't been rated there, but I would think that it would be of High importance to WikiProject Linguistics/Applied, as one of the first countries where multilingualism was described in detail. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As RebeccaGreen aptly points out, it's a notable and well-covered topic in its own right. There's room for expansion in the article beyond a table. Multilingualism for instance is a noted vehicle for social mobility in India, yet there is no mention of that in the article. On another note I think the pages current assessment rating of C-TOP is a bit fluffed; i'd be more conservative with Start-MID, and may change it after this AfD. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note If the article is expanded, even just a bit, to include information not included at Languages of India, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. However, until/unless that happens, I stick by my nomination as an unnecessary redundancy. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Languages of India, with no prejudice against re-splitting when more information is added. There appear to be only two sentences (about Hindi) in this article that are not already covered at Languages of India. The topic is certainly notable, but at present the page is unnecessary duplication. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sans the presence of nuke-able stuff; the current state of the article shall not affect the outcome of an AfD. This is a highly notable topic and there exists hordes of sources about the part. locus.∯WBG^converse 06:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I'm familiar with any policy that says that you can't consider the current condition of an article during AFD. Regardless, notability has to be established, and the article currently does not establish it. While I believe that this could potentially become a useful article, in its current state, it does absolutely nothing to improve Wikipedia. I don't see the point of keeping a useless and redundant article in hopes that somebody will one day improve it. The article can always be restored if and when an editor decides to write a useful version. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your measure we should be deleting every stub on Wikipedia. Just because an article hasn't met its potential yet, doesn't mean you should delete it. That's very counterproductive. Also per point B2 of WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." What that means is that instead of nominating for deletion, you should have found sources and added them. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every stub. Just the ones that are completely redundant. Why is it my responsibility to expand the article? You're the one arguing to keep it, so why don't you expand it? If it's expanded, even just a little, I'll gladly withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS, have you seen WP:IMPERFECT, which is a policy? ∯WBG^converse 17:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical.ca

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

Article about an online directory, "referenced" only to a Q&A interview with its founder on a WordPress blog. As always, websites like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources (not blogs) to clear WP:GNG, but there's no evidence that this is. And for added bonus, the person named in the infobox as the site's managing editor is also simultaneously listed as a contributor to the blog, which means that the blog isn't even fully independent of the article subject. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources to establish any sort of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reliable sources are not avilable and fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cannon (barrister)

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

Article proves subject is a real human, but not that he is notable. References are almost entirely to amazon.com showing he authored some tax books, as well as articles on his personal website. A Google News search finds only one RS (Daily Telegraph) which contains only a quote from him and no biographical information; other references discovered are non-RS (Daily Mail). Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient third-party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion which is what a lot of articles on lawyers and businessmen end up being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability as described by WP:GNG. Very little biographical information seems to exist. Nannochloropsis (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable through authorship and recognised expertise on UK tax law; Tolleys is a reputable guide (one of main reference works) and subject has authored and edited its reference works on property taxes over a long period. Further RSs added since creation. Marktristan (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Consequence

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The award he won, Nigerian Hype Awards, doesn't seem to be notable per the "major award" criterion. SITH (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has not won any significant award, neither does he pass WP:GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability, fails WP:ENTERTAINER --DannyS712 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I found he appears to be performing on some significant bills but not as headliner. What coverage I found wasn't really significant, nor were the sources convincingly reliable. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's possible that this was not notable when originally created per the history raised by UW Dawgs, but subsequent comments revealed substantial coverage that has appeared more recently. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Clemson football rivalry

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

I'm skeptical of the notability of this topic. These schools just happen to play each other more recently due to the recent strength of these college football programs. Quick research of the topic redirects to this Wikipedia article and information on past CFB National Championships. I don't believe playing a team in championships ever so often means the two programs are suddenly rivals. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by a notorious SPA who is now blocked re SOCK. One hallmark of their edits is creation of insufficiently sourced rivalry articles such as this one (most/all of the associated cleanup AfDs have passed when nominated). WP:GNG statesIf a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Searches might return articles tied to this week's news cycle which contain the "R" word, but fail GNG in my view on lack of depth. Likely WP:TOOSOON, barring discovery of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing a team a number of times does not make a rivalry, no source that this is anything established. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. Changed my vote. ESPN put out this article today: "Clemson-Alabama is the embodiment of the modern rivalry". That's pretty unambiguously non-routine coverage that refers to the series as a rivalry. I personally don't like that this series keeps being referred to as a rivalry, as I think there is a pretty clear divide between something like this and something like the Iron Bowl. But the fact that there is significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is hard to dispute. Ostealthy (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article could have been created by a banana slug for all I care... I see significant coverage in the Washington Post "Alabama handles Oklahoma, will renew CFP rivalry with Clemson in final" and Charleston Post-Courier "Sapakoff: Alabama vs Clemson is the best top-level football rivalry, college or NFL — ever" this to me looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is WP:SIGCOV from reliable, third party sources (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of the topic of the rivalry, but the coverage only seems to be routine during the time of the College Football Playoff National Championship. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and go way, way, way beyond the scope of the definition of "routine coverage" as outlined in WP:ROUTINE. These aren't just listing of scores but are feature articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sourcing describing it as a notable rivalry. I don't care who created it, it's clearly notable and claiming it should be deleted because of the creator is nothing more than ad hominem attacks and should be completely ignored. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real rivalry is that both schools are good. They don't play each other outside of College Football Playoff games. If Penn State and UCLA suddenly become good and play in a few national championships, will that become a rivalry? Beasting123 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Will they be called a rivalry in multiple independent significant reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a true rivalry as it's understood in the college football landscape. Different conferences, different states. There are only a small handful of rivalries like that (USC/Notre Dame) but they play every year and have a long history. There's been 1 actually scheduled meeting in the regular season in the past 40 years for Alabama/Clemson. Zaqwert (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those of you voting "Keep" here; are there any in-depth sources covering this as a rivalry that are dated prior to December 2015 (i.e. not part of the media hype machine buildup to their CFP matches)? For a similar situation in a different sport, check out Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry, another article about two teams who are not "rivals" in any kind of historical or geographical sense until they suddenly and recently began meeting in the championship match seemingly every single year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason that is necessary for notability? To me, it's a notable rivalry because the rivalry has been addressed directly by name in significant reliable sources. As stated in WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I see nothing there to even suggest requiring coverage before December 2015.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not necessary, but coverage dated prior to December 2015 would go a long way to assuage any WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS concerns there may be with the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTNEWS is very specific. Since this clearly is not: 1) Original reporting; 2) News reports; 3) Who's who; or 4) A diary then I don't see how that policy could apply. And WP:RECENTISM seems to be stretch too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is it a notable rivalry, it is the most notable rivalry in college football today. In three of the last four years, they have played for the national championship ranked #1 and #2. In the fourth year, they met in the playoff ranked #1 and #4. This is completely unprecedented -- legendary stuff. And as Paul pointed out above, there is abundant coverage discussing the series as a rivalry. (I understand the hostility to the article; everyone outside the South is sick of these teams' dominance, but one cannot deny the notability of this series.) Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Paul mentioned, see also (1) "Alabama vs Clemson is the best top-level football rivalry, college or NFL — ever", (2) "Alabama-Clemson becomes college football's best rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of who created this article, the fact still stands that these two teams have come to face each other at the end, or close to the end of every season. The rivarly has recieved beyond significant reliable coverage:

I think this rivarlry pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. So I vote to keep. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable third party sources, non-routine coverage, and regularly billed as a major rivalry as of late. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator due to the sources proposed in the debate and the consensus that the article actually needs to be cleaned up. The nominator (me) vows to help in the cleanup effort. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

DJ Spen

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

This article has a lot of information but it really reaches for notability in awkward ways, and it is entirely dependent on routine sources from Discogs pages and the typical retail/streaming sites. The DJ has a few vague brushes with greatness, as his early group Numarx was known for having a song covered by Milli Vanilli, he was briefly a member of The Basement Boys who had one minor hit single, and his current record company has released items by notable artists. But I don't think that any of this justifies an article on the DJ himself, who has little evidence of notability on his own. He can be mentioned as a collaborator in articles about other people/companies, and possibly redirected to The Basement Boys if anyone thinks that's a good idea. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to The Basement Boys. Discogs liner notes don't add up to notability, but I don't really see a reason not to redirect to the nearest-notable thing the subject contributed to.~~ Switching vote to keep, while most of the criteria supposedly satisfied below according to MarCoop don't appear to pass muster (for the most part those aren't reliable sources or non-trivial coverage, etc.) the Billboard charting is enough to satisfy keep _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 03:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. He was with Basement Boys at least 10 years - not sure if that’s considered brief - and seemingly the most relevant member left in terms of still creating music and working in the industry. At least I’m not coming up with much on the others except Karizma who has a page as well. It seems that much of his work was actually after the Basement Boys. My searches show that he is currently very relevant on the house music scene - seeing lots of recent connections to Defected Records, southport weekender, and DJ Mag which are the biggest names in house/dance music. I also found two Billboard number 1 dance chart hits from summer 2018. I turned up several current interviews and press items - much of it U.K. and Europe-based. I also found billing/advertisements confirming his participation in some of the big house music festivals in Croatia, UK and Ibiza for spring/summer 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleSpin (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe the reasons mentioned by Doomsdayer520 provide any valid rationale for why DJ Spen’s page should be deleted. The reasons mentioned do not appear to be a part of the criteria as reflected in the Notability guidelines and seem to be more opinion than fact based.

The Notability guidelines state that “Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.” I believe that DJ Spen meets at least 6 criteria.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

https://www.houseoffrankie.com/listen-to-dj-spens-new-gospel-house-single-my-soul-is-a-witness-here/

http://www.soulfulseduction.co.uk/djspen/

https://myhouseradio.fm/2018/10/03/myhouseradio-qa-with-legend-dj-spen/

https://www.foundationsofhouse.com/blog/songs-and-beats-and-rhythms-in-conversation-with-dj-spen-foh2018

https://www.mobilebeat.com/dj-spen-and-genesis-jones-new-music/

https://www.spiritofhouse.com/reviews/music-reviews/spotlight281018.html

https://mixmag.net/read/defected-takeover-in-the-lab-ibz-karizma-b2b-dj-spen-dj-lab

https://soundcloud.com/solus-music/mike-solus-presents-khillaudio-soulful-sundayz-live-housemasters-radio-211018-10

https://housemasters-radio.com/artists-profile/artists-profile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omg3L7Plr0E

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8463311/donna-summer-hot-stuff-2018-dance-club-songs-chart

https://www.billboard.com/music/dj-spen-presents-jasper-street-company/chart-history/dance-club-play-songs/song/349024

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]

http://ibizaglobal.tv/videos_list/bobby-steve-groove-assasin-dj-spen-terry-hunter-groove-odyssey-special-set/

http://www.southportweekender.co.uk/dj-spen/

https://5mag.net/news/southport-weekender-2018/

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

https://news.traxsource.com/articles/2787/traxsource-top-100-soulful-house-artists-of-2018

https://news.traxsource.com/articles/2736/traxsource-top-100-soulful-house-artists-of-2017

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarCoop (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - I would argue that some of the sources suggested by MarCoop are not in fact "reliable" but are merely routine listings (e.g. housemasters-radio.com or soundcloud.com) but others look pretty good. Unless someone else votes to delete, I can withdraw the nomination. But in any case, the article needs to be improved significantly with some of these new sources, with the removal of a lot of promotional language. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs to be cleaned up. This discussion can help guide that process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarCoop (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinic (Georgian TV series)

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

Article has been unsourced for over a year. No secondary sourcing at all can be found for this one. Looks to fail WP:GNG, and thus a non-notable TV show for En Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for sources but couldn't find any, the cast and crew aren't linked and there is barely any information. --Gonnym (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: other than the fact it's been broadcast there's no coverage. Fails WP:NTV. SITH (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References are not available. Reddragon7 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Moreci

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR & WP:ENT. Not enough coverage in reliable and independent sources that can help confirm notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google search found nothing in reliable sources, a few blogs and her book listed as being offered from bookstores. Got here from list of women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. funplussmart (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Valereee. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch has brought up no reviews, even ISFDB has nothing on her. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, also WP:NWEB is applicable as YouTube is one of her main media outlets. She also fails that as well. SITH (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skrizzly Adams

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

1. Does not assert notability. 2. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC spryde | talk 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO but stuff like "placing him in league with previous victors" and a list of quotes in the lead paragraph make the thing sound like a hagiography, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. SITH (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having won a songwriting contest (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/04/prweb13373411.htm) he appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too but the competition is really spammy. I am having trouble finding articles about that competition from reputable publications. spryde | talk 12:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source cited by Walter Görlitz is from an online user-submitted PR service. The International Songwriting Competition doesn't appear to be a significantly recognized award. The press I could find all originate with the organizations own press releases and self-promotion. FWIW, for an organization that purports to be "major international", it has a meager social media following (less than 40 thousand on Facebook; a mere 5 thousand on Twitter.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. Google search reveals effort to gin up recognition with press from junk user-submitted sources like AXS and PRnewswire, but there is no significant, third party recognition. Great name, though. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage in independent sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. Sandstein 09:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection LaserDisc releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Holsheimer (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. They are very much connected. Holsheimer (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as a notable list subject with coverage in reliable sources as shown in the parent article, no valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above suggestion; this is a highly-curated and acclaimed series of films, hardly the Relativity Media Moissanite Collection of a bunch of bargain bin regulars. A retitle of the article to List of Criterion Collection disc media releases or an equivalent title is also suggested to envelope these LaserDisc titles in. Nate • (chatter) 06:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. I also don't think this should be outright deleted as the article correctly lists the items concerning notable subjects. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No keep rationale has been presented other than WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. FOARP (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sister project. This is extremely valuable information for users, and it might be in some way appropriate for WP to include it. But we now have a much better way, whih is Wikidata. I'm not sure how we wouldgo about making references from WP articles to relevant Wikidata searches that would provide this sort of linked information, but we should figure out how. .(I point out that it would be appropriate for each individual item of information to be in WP also, as part of the relevant filmography.For important films and other media,, we do cover multiple releases, sometimes in detail. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. -- Scott (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eclipse releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases, which this list is intimately related to as a line within Criterion. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page which should also be deleted, for the same reasons. FOARP (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. They are very much connected. Holsheimer (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above as a notable list as clearly shown by the parent article has coverage in reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases per above comments. Vorbee (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. There's stuff worth saving here but I agree with nom that it, in itself, doesn't pass LISTN. SITH (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep. It appears that concerns over promotional content have been addressed (and if there are still concerns they can be addressed by editing). Michig (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Katz (writer)

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

The plethora of sources, none of which are of the kind that accord notability, are mainly concerned with promoting Katz's food or restaurants. The article itself is little more than a CV without making any specific claims to notability, and has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Fails WP:BIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG, even with refined GNews searches such as MK (food writer) and MK (israel food writer) I drew several blanks, can't find very much specifically about the man to lend notability. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:L3X1, I think the writer part is the issue here, look for Michael Katz Chef or some variation. He is michelin rated and I find several reviews of his food. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and the work, Hell in a Bucket. In light of the material you found, I am withdrawing my above vote. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding enough to think he is notable, could the article be less spammy, sure. Sources below like [[7]] Is he Gordon Ramsay? Probably not but there is enough here that I found that makes me feel he meetes GNG

Ynetnews.com [[8]], review of the resteruant by 3rd party

Jpost [[9]] another food review, this one by their managing editor

Another Jpost [[10]] acknowledging "is a member of the Belgian association of Master Chefs"

Coverage from Philippines The Daily Enquirer [[11]]

JWfoodandwine.com use his food for their article [[12]]

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hell in a bucket. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it appears he himself didn't get the Michelin stars but rather his employer as he wasn't head chef at the time but that along with the sources Hell in a Bucket has brought up leads me to conclude he probably passes WP:GNG. Unsure if he passes WP:NAUTHOR but GNG supersedes SNGs. SITH (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. This is a WP:NOT policy criterion, and supersedes any claims about whether or not it meets the WP:GNG guideline. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Independent reliable coverage added to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibhusita Das

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

She's the first woman from her home state of Odishia to become a Marine Engineer serving on board a ship (according to the sources there are other female engineers who're land-based). While this achievement received some coverage in the Times of India, I'm not sure that it's notable enough to provide justification for an article here. Neiltonks (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with reliable Indian sources, but I've found many citations to add. I'll wait for someone else to come in and assess reliability. Got here from list of women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, and claim to notability is dubious at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In reality, this is an engineering graduate, claim to notability is pretty dubious. W C M_email 13:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, the fact she's the first woman to do something and that fact was covered in multiple sources -- if those sources are reliable, I'd say that's a claim to notability. Does anyone know if the sources are reliable? I don't want to !vote until we get that cleared up. valereee (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've given the article a thorough thumping to clean it up and remove tags. There are actually two claims made: (1) that Bibhusita Das is the first Odia woman to become a Marine Engineer and (2) that she is the the first woman from Odisha to serve as an officer on a shipping vessel. She is the main subject of an article in at least 6 news sources, including The Times of India, New Indian Express, The Hindu and Hindu BusinessLine. Stories were written by at least three different writers. Publication dates cluster around three points in time, January 2013, March 2013 and January 2018. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mary Mark Ockerbloom's assessment of sources, which from a quick glance at their user page appears to be expert-level. valereee (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @valereee In case you are still interested: the two big news RS in India are 'The Times of India' (TOI) and The Hindu. After that you have the New Indian Express, The Economic Times, The Telegraph and the Hindustan Times. There are some decent regionals such as the Deccan Chronicle etc. I'd put Firstpost and The Business Standard on the list too, but some may not agree. Cesdeva ^(talk) 18:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, cesdeva I knew someone would come in with that! :) I'm going to paste your post into my user page, as I do see a lot of articles about Indian nationals and other than The Times of India I have never been sure. valereee (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mary Mark Ockerbloom's post above. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold Vector Machine

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

Appears to be original research, published only in the article creator's blog. A Google Scholar search reveals no mention of this in any published paper. Balkywrest (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. We don't publish original research and searches in WorldCat, JSTOR and "Manifold+Vector+Machine" Google Scholar bring up nothing. A Google Books search brings up one Scribd article but that is not a reliable source due to lack of editorial oversight. SITH (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. This is pure Original Research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial references to counter personal synthesis. Most likely Original research. Rekonedth (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as per all the others - this is WP:OR and the term is not in general use, nor does it appear in peer-reviewed papers. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orland Park Crossing

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

Unreferenced since 2009. The only WP:RS thing I could find about it is that it may have gone bust in 2010. Narky Blert (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inclined to agree that it isn't necessary to have this as an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small outdoor shopping center that does not appear notable enough for an individual article. Dough4872 22:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another run of the mill shopping mall with little significant coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What this article lacks in sources, it doesn't make up for in anything else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability standards.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks in sources and doesn't meet WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable shopping mall without the coverage to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete A WP:BEFORE found no reliable sources on this subject. Fails GNG . CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Brahm

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

This page should be deleted because:

1) It breaks WP:NOT, specifically WP:PROMO. Specifically this article consists entirely of promotional material that was written by an apparently WP:COI editor (see article talk-page for more details).

2) The subject of the article is not notable per WP:BASIC, having not received WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The only source provided in the article that is generally considered an RS is the New York Times, but this provides only a drive-by reference to him opening a hotel in Lhasa (i.e., not a notable activity, apparently WP:ROUTINE), and does not "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" as required by the policy. All other sources are self-published, self-written, or otherwise not independent.

3) My WP:BEFORE returned no results that were independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage. He has authored books, but these were under the Ibis Press imprint - not an established publisher - and no reviews in independent RSs came up. He has presented shows for Chinese state media but he was not really the subject of these (propaganda for the Chinese Communist Party was) and anyway the independence of the Chinese state media is highly dubious. FOARP (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not going to state an opinion on whether to keep or delete this article. I have met Mr. Brahm on several occasions, which induces an inherit bias, and therefore stating an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article would be inherently biased. I would only like to say; that (a) I've reviewed the references that are on the article now, and concur with FOARP's assessment and (b) our view of his notability may very likely be polarized by viewing him through the prism of Western media, rather than Asian media. It's quite possible that to Chinese people he is quite notable. The prose of the article reads as promotional, but that's not a reason to delete; that can be cleaned up. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO and for lack of WP:SIGCOV, despite all the hype on the page, sourcing is almost entirely PRIMARY, many grand claims are unsourced, and I can't find anything much in searches, certainly nothing to support notability. Great photo, though. I wasted a lot of time loking, but came down exactly as Nom User:FOARP does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of text here, but the article is unambiguous promo against the policy of the encyclopedia (WP:NOTPROMO), and once you peel away the layers of promotion the subject lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. Bakazaka (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus again driven by RebeccaGreen's findings. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Blythe

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

Lack of secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would just redirect this Anne of Green Gables. Shaneymike (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST: 'Why We Loved Gilbert Blythe', The New Yorker [13]; 'Move over, sexy beasts, and make way for the real literary hero, Gilbert Blythe', The Guardian [14]; 'Anne of Green Gables ‘Gilbert Blythe’ actor Jonathan Crombie dead at 48', News.com.au [15] with quotes "Jonathan Crombie will always be my Gilber", "My very first love was Gilbert Blythe"; 'Gilbert Blythe lives on through Anne of Green Gables internet fandoms' CBC [16], which describes the amount of Gilbert Blythe fan art and fan fiction available; 'The Charlottetown Festival announces the next Gilbert Blythe' [17]; etc. How about doing WP:BEFORE? RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secondary sources exist that focus on the character. However, the article takes an in-universe perspective and would probably benefit from TNT and redirect, without prejudice to a later recreation based on RS. Catrìona (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Surprised this was re-listed after her substantial response. FOARP (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this deletion is why I don't donate to Wikipedia. 170.232.224.10 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My other area of concern, and I apologize for not mentioning it earlier, is that it appears to be written from an in-universe perspective like Catrìona said. If it stays, fine, but I think it ought to be edited so that it is less in-universe, and I would add some sort of reception headline to help establish notability. Shaneymike (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sources provided above. Aoba47 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how this is not a secondary source. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UIUC Residence Halls

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

Do we really need an article on residence halls at university? Furthermore, this article reads like a student guide written by students as a prank. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of vandalism that got added in earlier today. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have no real reason to describe individual houses, as they have nothing notable about them. Seems more fitting for a pamphlet then an article. WelpThatWorked (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BEFORE to University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign#Residence halls as a useful redirect to a section with relevant content. Just Chilling (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. At least one of the residence hall complexes is a historic building. And at least a list of residence halls would be reasonable addition to the main article about the university, as it is a description of the university, which is notable. --Bsherr (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Just Chilling and sysop-protect the redirect as we've established the Halls themselves aren't notable enough to warrant their own page and Mz7's diff suggests that it's going to be a target for vandalism anyway. SITH (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect the sourced material to Campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (not just University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign). I'm not sure the housing by itself has WP:SIGCOV — though after 100 years, it certainly could have and perhaps we just don't have it in the article yet. But I'm sure that Campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign must have attracted enough research that, if WP:SIGCOV isn't yet proven in the article, its just our own fault. (That full-campus article has an obnoxious proportion of WP:OR however.) On the subject of article protection: This is one of the older articles on Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have been redirected before; so even if it's non-notable, it's not so obviously non-notable that we need immediate protection from undoing a redirect, let alone sysop-only protection. --Closeapple (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesquire:: You did say to tell you if this came up for AfD. It's only been 11 years, right? --Closeapple (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as specified by Sloseapple. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Lacks the coverage for its own article, but it looks like there's a good redirect target. Sandals1 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect resident hall itself does not consider notable. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus either way, and the last two relists haven't attracted any new contributors to the discussion. Michig (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Gate Bel Air, Los Angeles

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

There is no WP:Reliable source in this article to indicate that East Gate Bel Air is an actual neighborhood. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to indicate it is a real-estate listing classification only. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The gateway on Sunset Boulevard pictured in the article is a somewhat striking landmark, I know from having driven past it many times long ago, and based on that plus general experience about historic sites and neighborhood articles, I am pretty sure the gateway itself would be eligible for listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and that the neighborhood as a whole surely is notable. Good to have a stub article on the combo topic (gateway plus neighborhood), rather than deleting only to create one or two articles later. I haven't searched online for sources, I acknowledge, but it just seems fairly obviously notable. --Doncram (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bel Air is made up of three separate neighborhoods. East Gate Bel Air (alternately called Old Bel Air) was noted as such by the Los Angeles Times when former President Reagan moved there in 1988. "...the Reagans' post-presidential residence is a modest, by old (i.e., East Gate) Bel-Air standards..." . I also noticed that The Los Angeles Times has referenced people living in "Old Bel Air" on numerous occasions. Michael Landon lived in"The $4.9-million house in old Bel-Air ". As the Los Angeles Times has, on multiple occasions, singled out either East Gate Bel Air or Old Bel Air, I recognize this as a separate neighborhood (from the newer West Gate Bel Air and Upper Bel Air) and have no problem with it maintaining its own wikipedia page. Phatblackmama (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Merge with Bel Air, Los Angeles - Apart from real estate and business directory listings the few sources that actually mention East Gate do so in the context of Bel Air as a whole, not as a separate entity. Our notability guidelines are based on coverage in reliable sources, not our own perceptions. The Notable Residents section raises serious concerns including home locations sourced to the County Assessor's office. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. I !voted Keep above. User:Dlthewave, what is meant by "The Notable Residents section raises serious concerns". Old Bel Air and other elite areas in Los Angeles are covered by maps showing homes of celebrities, which are toured by busloads of tourists and by self-drive tourist tours. I tend to suspect the maps are outdated, showing homes of old/dead celebrities and not so much up-and-coming ones, but this information is more or less factual and public and of weirdly great public interest, unlike any info about residents anywhere else. There are not general concerns about saying where Sonny and Cher used to live together. Much more specific info about the celebrities locations is already very well known by papparrazzi(sp?), and this is not targeting them for anything. I don't see any concerns, and in fact think a former residents list for this area is quite relevant and encyclopedic even (while elsewhere I would probably dislike them, and maybe I would not like to publish lists where political or other public figures lived. Celebrities want to be famous.) --Doncram (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Staniforth (builder)

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

Notability concerns; none of the references seem substantial. References appear to be family genealogy or simply state that he built Darnall Hall (which may not be notable either). Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uninvited Company 22:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Darnall Hall (which he built), assuming the building passes AfD. Borderline notability (there might be a case to be made) - much of the coverage is in relation to the Hall and later Staniforth progeny. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything more than is already in the article, and that is solely genealogical (both the references, and, largely, the content). Esquire is not an occupation, it "was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank". I don't think building a house (or causing one to be built) is particularly notable, in itself. I wouldn't even say merge to Darnall Hall - I don't think knowing who the builder's great-grandfather, brother-in-law or friend were is useful in an encyclopaedia entry about a house. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a clear consensus for keep. Delete supporters made the argument that there were "virtually zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources" while Keep supporters rebutted that argument by pointing out what they claimed to be in-depth coverage. Delete supporters offered surrebuttal by stating that the arguments of Keep supporters amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that the coverage found was not WP:SIGCOV. Keep supporters, in turn, provided a contra-surrebuttal by claiming further sources were available offline that were significant. The contra-surrebuttal appeared to satisfy one of the two primary Keep critics. (non-admin closure) Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhall Spa Cottage Museum

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

Local museum with virtually zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Current sourcing includes 3 dead links and a generic link to the county's tourism site. Even the external link to the museum's website is incorrect. Fails as per WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Museums tend to last a long time and serve as a keeper of history and culture. I have no issue with any page about a legitimate museum and there is no benefit to our readers in excluding information about these important parts of the community infrastructure. Editing can fix any other issues. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very quick search of Google books shows this museum is mentioned in several books, only two of which are travel guides. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neither of the above !votes is based on actual policies. The first is an example of WP:ILIKEIT, while the second basically confirms that this museum is not notable, as there is no in-depth coverage, only mentions and listings. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The delete rational is basically IDONTLIKEIT. Mention in travel guides justifies a short page BTW. No harm has been shown here. If you really hate the page, I suggest merging it with the town and redirecting, but I see no harm in keeping it. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you feel that not meeting WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT is IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you should re-read those policies. Can you point to the policy guideline to back up your incorrect statement that mention in travel guides justifies a short page? That's in direct contradiction of actual policies.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is correct because published travel guides are researched reliable sources. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Unfortunately looking at the gbooks search the books listed appear to be by a local historian, published by the museum and/or directory entries. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

\

Keep buildings sufficiently beloved to become museums tend to be notable and, unsurprisingly, even a quick gNews search beings up sources [18]. I added an article about a big grant this Museum got form the lottery fund. there were more articles in the news archive search; sources do exist. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently some people find it notable. 147 reviews on TripAdvisor is a lot for a smaller museum. [19] Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... aaaand again, neither of those are actual policies... there are sources, but nothing in-depth... and 147 out of 4 billion people on the planet find it worth commenting on. Wow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cite GNG. Perhaps since only one person on the planet is in favor of deletion we can close this and move on? :) Legacypac (talk)

User:onel5969 I added a little of the coverage in local newspapers found in news archives. And note that our page on Richard Adolphus Came, the architect who designed Woodall Spa, cites this museum as a source. I know it looked bad when you nominated it, but there really seems to be notability here. cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks E.M.Gregory - but I'm still not seeing how it passes GNG. Using the criteria listed by several editors here, every bar and restaurant in every city in the world would deserve a Wikipedia article, since local coverage can almost always be found. Museums, being organizations, also fall under WP:ORGDEPTH, which is not met in this case. Regardless, thanks for your improvements to the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 Would you be willing to take another look, at material I have now added about the 1887 building? It should meet your sourcing standards.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E.M.Gregory - I have been. Still not seeing anything more than trivial mentions. Even the book, while I can't see it, appears to be a simple listing of a building built using a particular type of methodology. I think it's an interesting piece, made much better now than when it first appeared in the mainspace, but there is not the in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, and since it is an organization, it nowhere comes close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Legacypac. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what was meant to be the significance in this discussion ofEven the external link to the museum's website is incorrect? I don't get it. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered- That the article was in such woeful shape initially that it didn't even have the correct link to the Museum's website. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link, which you could have done easier than complaining about it. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (would be a vote, but there is no point here to vote further) onel5969, While in any other case this should have been closed as a clear keep consensus, the discussion of it is really, really, REALLY poor, consisting of WP:ILIKEIT, saying but not showing which books does it have significant coverage in (per WP:SIGCOV), per XYZ person....jeez. In any case, this will surely not be deleted and would at best be closed as no consensus for another discussion, but I wanted to discuss the sources by an analysis.

In the article:

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20110725215230/http://www.visitlincolnshire.com/site/things-to-do/woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-p15831 is a proper link for it, but still not a secondary source.
2. Locked behind an account creation that is not even visible how to do it (could be only instituitions bound). I am certainly not going to make an account just to view an article that may be or not be a WP:SIGCOV, nor will a regular Wiki reader. Anyone can easily just post links from ProQuest and slap it a reference tag regardless of how much it covers the subject this way.
3. https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-wins-heritage-lottery-fund-award is a proper link, WP:ROUTINE winning of Heritage Lottery Fund Award, which itself is not notable.
4 and *5 Primary sources
6 https://web.archive.org/web/20100128133436/http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk:80/Council+and+democracy/website/contact+us/woodhall+spa.htm is a proper link, just a information and contact listing
7 and *8 Locked being an account creation. Same as *2

In my search I found so far

1 https://books.google.rs/books?id=MLsSDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=Woodhall+Spa+Cottage+Museum&source=bl&ots=StWUELaQaO&sig=kHwMhPTClcDWGDUPTSFjPO5mi4o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjasI_ZzuDfAhU2AxAIHQDfAlg4MhDoATAFegQIEBAB#v=onepage&q=Woodhall%20Spa%20Cottage%20Museum&f=false Passing mention
2 https://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/whats-on/crafty-cards-on-offer-at-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-1-6619951 PR announcement, has even the e-mail at the end
3 https://www.horncastlenews.co.uk/whats-on/arts/victorian-christmas-at-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum-1-8256334 another WP:ROUTINE annoucemnt that is not a WP:SIGCOV
4 https://petwoodblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/august-at-the-woodhall-spa-cottage-museum/ Blog, not a reliable secondary source.
5 http://mdem.org.uk/new-lease-life-cottage-museum-woodhall-spa/ another PR coverage that is not a WP:SIGCOV of the subject.

Considering we do not have a guideline nor policy that makes museums presumably notable, this would be a clear delete for me. But the state of the discussion says otherwise. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Jovanmilic97 for your in-depth analysis. AfD discussions are not votes, and one would hope that the closing admin/NAC would understand your point above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN the building turns out to be notable due to the fact that it is made of Corrugated galvanised iron produced by Boulton & Paul Ltd. Sourced all of this to a beautifully done work of architecture history: Mornement, Adam; Holloway, Simon (2007). Corrugated Iron: Building on the Frontier. W. W. Norton & Company. Note that the museum opened on the centennial of the erection of the building, and that it was built to house two employees of the Spa corporation that built the town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that searching: "cottage museum" "woodhall spa" brings up sources that "woodhall spa cottage museum" fails to locate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory considering that book https://books.google.rs/books?id=Km8Xc8UXXv4C&dq=Corrugated+Iron:+Building+on+the+Frontier&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9t93_5ODfAhUkw4sKHbgEDhcQ6AEIKTAA does not have a preview, how can we verify any info here though? As it stands now to me, still does not change my opinion until a content of the book can be verified. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. The page in the book was visible in gBooks. And I read the section on this building. The book, which was well reviewed in scholarly journals, is widely owned by libraries and widely cited. I have also added information on the Wields and the business they ran found in a newspaper article that I had previously added "Delight at the Museum." Many articles come up in news archive searches (I ran a Proquest search, but I'm sure newspapers.com has similar,) from which the article can be expanded. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found. (WP:OFFLINE reminds us to "to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source", also for WP:PAYWALL.) E.M.Gregory, in your recent edits, is "The cottage was built by John and Mary, employees of Woodhull Spa" meant to read "John and Mary Wield"? I have found only a few sources, though they do contain some info not yet in the article. The Ancient Monuments Society Newsletter (2010/01) [20] gives info about the Heritage Lottery Fund awards, and says that the corrugated iron building was the home of John Wield "whose family provided donkey-drawn bath chairs to carry people between the hotels and spa baths at Woodhall." (The Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology also has info about that: [21].) Apart from that, Lincolnshire Life magazine has a few paras about the cottage museum [22]. An article in Lincolnshire History & Archaeology in 2000 includes a photo by John Wield showing the construction of a well, with oak rings as stagings [23] - I had wondered if his photos were significant outside Woodhall Spa, but that is the only instance I've found so far of them being cited. Lincolnshire Today had an article in 2012 called 'Spa for the Course' [24], which has more info about the building (apparently it was erected on a different site in 1884, then moved to the present site in 1887) and about the removal of buildings damaged by arsonists (somewhere I read that one was the donkeys stables, a great pity). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RebeccaGreen findings in Lincolnshire Today, Lincolnshire Life, The Ancient Monuments Society Newsletter, passes WP:GNG now. E.M.Gregory and RebeccaGreen I am assuming good faith as always, but that does not mean I will be convinced regarding notability, if that makes sense? That is not assuming bad faith at all in my opinion. Yes, WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE sources can count, but I cannot judge whether it counts towards WP:GNG on something I can't see. I hope you understand me in what I am trying to say. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment update Seems that the Google Book preview of "Corrugated Iron: Building on the Frontier" is not allowed in my country (or even maybe Europe) for some odd reason. So I will trust E.M Gregory on this, especially since a lot of content is used for that citation alone. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of U.S. Engineer Battalions

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

This is a collection of images - a gallery - that should be on Commons, in accordance with WP:Galleries. WP:IG: One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. .. Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.

Previous similar page deletions include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments Infantry and Artillery Regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree - just an image gallery. Doesn;t belong here. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article per NOTGALLERY but keep the images and put them in a category. SITH (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Ge Moll

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

The article has never met WP:BIO. There is no evidence to suggest that the subject meets notability requirements. All listed achievements and references are either unsubstantiated (e.g. the claim of a "Nobel prize nomination in Literature 2009" isn't verifiable because such nominations are not publicly disclosed) or consist solely of self-published work. MarkH21 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article's references do not support a claim of notability and my own google search found nothing to show he meets any notability standard, including the GNG. The article is by an SPA (WP:AUTO?) and uses lots of puffery instead of solid evidence--"known by his works on ...","build the new way of thought, sensibility and cognizing", "rises to popularity during the 1990s", etc. There's no evidence he's notable for his poetry or philosophical writings--or anything else.Sandals1 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of article that WP:TNT was written to address. No reader of the encyclopedia is served by this article, and no editor should be tasked with trying to disentangle this knot of jargon. Blow it up. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Sandals1, this article is full of weasel words that are so ingrained an entire rewrite is necessary to make it comply with NPOV. As for the notability, the lack of secondary sources and independent coverage suggests Moll fails BIO, so deletion is in order anyway. SITH (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscal Wake-Up Tour

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. News coverage seems to be mostly in passing (a bit of it is related to a documentary about the tour, but that's a different topic and the documentary doesn't appear very notable, either). I did fine on paragraph in a book [25] and a bit longer interview [26] in another, but overall I think it seems to fall on the wrong side of notability. Perhaps someone else can find better sources? Otherwise I am afraid this was a non-notable event. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly sources, back in the day in newspapers; in the film I.O.U.S.A.: [They tour the country, teaching and testifying and generally playing Cassandra (in a suit and tie) in what they call the "Fiscal Wake Up Tour.; and since in multiple books [27]. I'm wondering about an appropriate MERGE target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:EVENT; significant RS coverage not found. Also fails WP:ADVOCACY with these statements (much of the article): "The combination of the "big three" entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid)...; The unfunded federal future obligations..." Etc. Wikipedia is not a place for soapboxing or promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply lists the statements made by the speakers on the tour, and doesn't state them as facts. That isn't advocacy or promotion. --Michig (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT nor WP:GNG MarkH21 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mazoni

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

All primary and secondary sources for the company have been lost. The company website disappeared in 2016. A single user was the first and last contributor to the article, ending in 2016. The user's last edit was the article in 2016.

Said user has made a concerted effort to justify the article's notability here, and here. Aonus (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~but not for the nominated reason.~~ Searches reveal next to nothing about the company and the likely conclusion is that is simply an extinct non-notable company. The lack of an internet presence is not a reason for deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article contains a couple of claims which could indicate notability but even tailoring searches to be specific to those claims is providing no verification. One is left with little beyond a Wayback NewsAndReviews review of an Auna product which the article says was a brand of the company, but that would not in itself be sufficient for WP:NCORP and the overall problem with finding independent coverage of the company in its lifespan and presumed demise makes this unsustainable as an article. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A hoax: There is no chance that a company in Sweden with nearly 60 thousand (!) employees and a revenue of 132 billion SEK would be completely unknown on the internet. And if a company of this size had collapsed or merged, that would have been big news in itself. Moreover: While there are probably dozens of Anton Engbergs out there, the first names of the other key people are, taken as a group, unusual enough to be unlikely, and not a single one of them can be easily identified on the internet. "Headquartered in Östermalmstorg"? Östermalmstorg is not a district, but a fairly small square, where people go to buy vegetables or flowers. --Hegvald (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. In addition to what Hegvald says I can't find any contact info on the web pages stored in the Wayback Machine, which is quite unusual but consistent with a hoaxer that doesn't want to be contacted. Sjö (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above, clearly a hoax. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost definitely doesn't exist --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No comment about being a hoax, but I will say that there is no significant coverage so clearly fails WP:NCORP.
Delete. Not verifiable, hoax. /Julle (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the other comments noted previously, the company president ("Gåvan Stendahl") and vice chairman ("Frösten Engström") generate no Google hits at all apart from this article and mirrors, while the CEO ("Diogenes Söderström") is found on only this page and a site that appears to compile corporate information directly from Wikipedia. Such online invisibility is simply not conceivable for high corporate officials of an actual company. Furthermore, the supposed "OEM microprocessor manufacturer" acquired by Mazoni in 2003, Tinzan Electric, also has no known Internet presence. The company could not have introduced its supposed "wireless control module system" for an IEEE 802.11 network in 1992, because that standard did not come into existence for another five years. The article creator has almost no edits, and no substantial ones at all, outside of this article. All available information appears to point to a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bigfoot. Editors are free to merge content from history to the extent they deem this appropriate. Sandstein 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grassman

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

Fails WP:GNG, could not find sufficient rs coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. See references here: 1 2. FOARP (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second link is to a fringe source (fails WP:FRIND; cryptozoology), can't see the former, but it doesn't seem to establish notability. Books of its type tend to be pretty poor quality ("WEIRD state name here"). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only seem to be able to find fringe sources (cryptozoology) on this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bigfoot. Appears to just be a local variant on the bigfoot. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing cryptozoology - neither the fact that they discuss cryptozoology, nor the fact that cryptid likely doesn't exist, make them unreliable. Like religion and characters from fiction, there won't be reliable sources proving the subject matter to be real, but we still have articles on them. --Michig (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we have plenty of reliable sources that discuss cryptozoology over at cryptozoology. However, we don't use fringe sources, because they're not reliable, even for their own claims, as the sources over at cryptozoology make clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bigfoot as suggested by Michig. It may be more appropriate for "Grassman" to redirect to Grassman (surname), but the redirects that point to this article (Grass man, Kenmore Grassman, and Ohio Grassman) can all point to the Bigfoot article, which should have a section about similar creatures since there are a number of local variants like this one. --RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bigfoot; seems to just be a local variant. MarkH21 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doll Skin

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

This article, while well written and full of inline citations, nonetheless fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Checking through the references, they are all either trivial coverage (i.e. mentions), or not independent, or are supporting assertions that do not establish notability (e.g. regional tours or songs charting on charts not considered suitable for inclusion per WP:CHART). Uninvited Company 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doll Skin should NOT be deleted...They have been on 6 US National tours, 3 European Tours, they were signed to MegaForce Records, they are now signed with EMP Label Group, have toured twice on Warped Tour, and they have 2 international CD releases (with one song that charted on BillBoard's Mainstream Rock Indicator Chart. Additionally they have been featured multiple times in Alternative Press Magazine https://www.altpress.com/tag/doll-skin/ and Billboard Magazine https://www.billboard.com/search/manic%20pixie%20dream%20girl (2 very notable publications). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.230.41 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does need to have a proper assertion of notability in the opening paragraph but there are pieces in Alternative Press (magazine), Phoenix New Times and BraveWords that are independent and considerably more than mentions and as such can count towards WP:BAND "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" etc Romomusicfan (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have written assertion of notability. Romomusicfan (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment from user UninvitedCompany as I'm getting bored of waiting for something to happen.

It seems to me that the subject clearly passes WP:BAND Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself given as I've noted, the cited selections Alternative Press(introductory profile) Phoenix Times (full length feature),Billboard (magazine)(introductory profile) and BraveWords (full length news item)

Therefore I would ask UninvitedCompany (Steven) on what grounds he would still maintain that any or all of the above are trivial, unreliable, self-published or not independent of the band? Or is four simply not multiple enough?

If, bearing in mind what I've said, he no longer has any such objections, perhaps we should bring matters to a swifter conclusion rather than wait around for the next relisting. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage probably sufficient to justify an article, e.g. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and it doesn't look like another relist would change this. Michig (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dingonek

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

Only source is a secondhand memoir from 1910. A search failed to return any reliable sources to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See other references here 1 2 3. Again, yes, it's a Cryptid and almost certainly does not exist, but that's not the important point - the important point is what RSs say. FOARP (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are useable:

"Bigfoot is Missing!" is a children's picture/poetry book
"Uncle John's Weird Weird World: Who, What, Where, When, and Wow!" is a trivia compilation published by the Bathroom Readers' Institute
"On The Track Of Unknown Animals" is written by notoriously unreliable pseudoscientist Bernard Heuvelmans

A Wikipedia article must be based on high-quality sources, not pseudoscientists and those who parrot them. –dlthewave ☎ 20:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same point as has been made repeatedly here and elsewhere: yes, we know that Cryptids don't exist. Yes, people who study cryptids are pseudoscientists. This does not mean that Cryptids do not receive significant coverage in reliable sources for what is a cryptid. Continually repeating "but this is pseudoscience" is deeply unhelpful. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FOARP. I think this is a good case where cleanup is more warranted than deletion. Ryan shell (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see other sources apart from those given by FOARP [34][35][36][37], so it should pass WP:GNG even if the creature likely doesn't exist. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you evaluated the reliability of these sources? Two are period (1913 and 1917) pieces which repeat Jordan's story. Two are cryptid compendiums written by fringe theorists Shuker and Coleman. They might be useful as primary-souprce suporting material, but they aren't high-quality academic sources that one could use to build an article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1913 one from East African Geographical Review gives more than one account, and the Eberhart book appears to be from a reputable publisher. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Eberhart is a cryptozoologist and not an independent source for fringe topics (WP:FRIND). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are clearly fringe sources, but the other two don't establish notability even if you use the WP:GNG rather than the applicable WP:NFRINGE - the mention in the Journal of The East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society is not significant coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on the reliability of the sources is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've been over this again and again. Yes, we know that cryptids don't exist. Yes, we know that the people who study cryptids are pseudoscientists. This doesn't make them not reliable sources for what things are considered to be cryptids, any more than any of the articles related to fictional or legendary subject matter. This AFD proposal is part of a much bigger campaign to rid Wiki of articles related to cryptids. FOARP (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not reliable sources.

Cryptozoologists are not independent sources, and are widely known for making all sorts of nonsense claims both about themselves and their subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox, I would prefer to read that opinion offline, and who defined the boundaries of the field. I wont be so crass as to point out where cryptids were reported by 'unreliable sources' [as per 19C views] and the creature was later 'discovered' by science. cygnis insignis 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want sources discussing the unreliability of cryptozoologists, there are numerous sources on this topic here. You can also find Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science—where they discuss this topic in depth—pretty readily. Biologists find new species all the time, cryptozoologists have never found a single monster (or "cryptid", as they call them). Cryptozoology didn't exist until the late 1950s, the the subculture didn't coin the term "cryptid" until the mid-1980s. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox, I'm familiar with the topic, it is interesting from many aspects. I'll read what I can find from the article, though it is not the first place I would look to bring myself up to speed on the topic. The certainty of your position causes me doubt, a reflex I'm afraid, I'm steeped in the philosophy of science. My crass point was this: local peoples knew what was in their environment, those organisms were cryptids until they were shot and boxed. The other end of the field is something like the beliefs of pastafarians, another cryptid if someone wanted to dilute any meaning in the term. cygnis insignis 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From your response, it appears to me that you're conflating general folk belief with cryptozoology. The former is common among all people, the latter is an aggressively anti-academic subculture associated with, for example, Young Earth creationism. People have beliefs about all sorts of critters or monsters stemming from folklore. That's universal and doesn't fall into the realm of pseudoscience. The term "cryptid" was coined to cryptozoologists to make their subculture seem more 'scientific' to the general public by avoiding the word the rest of us use: monster. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find reliable sources for this beyond what's already there. Everything else seems to come from fringe sources (cryptozoology). If anyone can dig up anything on this from a folklorist, biologist, or whatever, we can get an article out of this. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East African Geographical Review is not a fringe source. Hzh (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source is from 1913. Although it may have been mainstream at the time, its credulous treatment of sightings is now firmly in fringe territory. Promoters of pseudoscience often cite theories that were once prominent mainstream scholarship but are no longer widely accepted. –dlthewave ☎ 13:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on what basis you base your argument on. Topics in pseudoscience or on things that are not accepted to be true are valid entries as any other topics. Are you proposing to delete phrenology, Bigfoot, Creation science and others? There seems to be a misuse of WP:FRIND which is not about notability criteria for an article, but a wider discussion on presenting sources on fringe theories (see for example in WP:PARITY where the views of the fringe theory adherents should be simply dismissed). For what's it worth, there are a lot more sources, e.g. [38][39]. Hzh (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science are all supported by mainstream scientific sources. None of the provided sources present a mainstream view of the Dingonek; how would one write an acceptable NPOV article using only credulous century-old reports and modern fringe pieces? –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, attribution. "Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science are all supported by mainstream scientific sources." I am reading this correctly? cygnis insignis 17:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that our Phrenology, Bigfoot and Creation science articles are supported by mainstream sources. These sources discuss the pseudoscience from a mainstream perspective but do not support the fringe theory itself. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We use independent, reliable (e.g. academic or solid journalist) sources for fringe articles. And for good reason: Fringe sources are not reliable, neither for their claims nor for describing themselves. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be dismissing the academic sources I gave for no reason apart from disliking them. Simply because you don't like them is not an argument. Hzh (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources? Which sources are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've given valid reasons for each source; I don't see any WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. Part of the problem is that outdated sources such as East African Geographical Review are being presented as academic. Science has advanced over the past century and our articles should reflect that advancement by using current reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What valid reasons? I see someone who claims not to see academic sources when there are (journals are academic sources), and you who arbitrarily reject the sources as unacceptable. It is not about whether they exists or not or if the claims are true, but whether the accounts of the creature exist in RS. You are mistaking the notability of article with the subject being true or false. Science has moved on from the idea of phlogiston, but that remains a historically significant subject. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our phlogiston article uses modern sources to describe the history of the theory from a current scientific perspective, and they're not written by phlogiston-promoters. The same cannot be said for the Dingonek, which seems to be largely ignored by current reliable sources and thus does not meet our notability requirements. Historical texts may have a use as primary-source documents for an early understanding of the topic but they would need to be supported by secondary sources to provide the necessary context. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the article as it stands now, there is one WP:PRIMARY source. There appears to be no WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. There appears to be no WP:NRV outside of the crypto-zoology field. Therefore, in my opinion it does not meet WP:NOTEability. I also reject the Slippery slope fallacy being employed on this page - if the Dingonek is removed today then tomorrow it could be the removal of the Loch Ness monster. William Harris • (talk) • 08:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you should not decide on the notability of article based on what is in the article, but what you can find in a search. Hzh (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened a discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of these sources. –dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep Not happy with the lack of sources, but a source being from 1913 is not a valid objection, this "Amérique, Sibérie, Afrique" by Bernard Heuvelmans may also have a reference to it. As may [[40]], as may [[41]]. That is enough for me to think keep.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heuvelmans, is of course, a founding figure of cryptozoology, and notoriously unreliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He also had a phd in zoology, thus making him a qualified zoologist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slater, you really need a copy of that Loxton and Prothero book, and I highly recommend that you spend some time with those references over at cryptozoology. Heuvelmans is indisputably a fringe figure who pushed deeply out-there stuff throughout his life, and often expressed hostility toward academia. Heuvelmans happens to also have no background in folklore studies—this entity, the Dingonek, like just about everything else cryptozoologists pursue, is an entity from the folklore record. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then should not be what the article is about (and sourced to) all those folklore studies? This is not an argument for deletion (it is not a cryptid, its a creature from folklore) but rather a re-write.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is lack of sources to establish notability and a lack of reliable sources to work with. If we can find some kind of monograph discussing the creature, then that can easily be accomplished (happens all the time), but that might not exist for this entity. It could be an obscure name for something else, for example, and potentially even invented as some kind of hoax. These situations are often a lot more complex than they initially seem, and so far I've turned up nothing with which to rebuild the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, I assume you have read RS that describe this as a creature from folk lore, so why not use those?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The few mentions we have of a few people talking about some creature called a dingonek = folklore. However, we only have a couple people talking about the creature in the early 20th century, and it may well have started out as a hoax (perhaps from Edgar Beecher Bronson or his informants or whatever) and thereafter took a life of its own (thus entering the folklore record), similar to the Partridge Creek monster. However, we don't have enough sources to say anything more than "some big game hunter said he saw some wild creature called the Dingonek in Kenya" at the moment. It's possible that some folklorist or linguist could have encountered this and said something about the name or whatever, but we currently lack any such source. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even look at the sources I provided, which gave different accounts from different people. Apparently the Masai gave the creature the name Ol-umaina. Hzh (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the 1912 W. M. Congreve source? From this we can add 'some years later, W. M. Congreve says he called local officials and they said they call the creature the "Ol-umaina", while describing it in a notably different manner'. Sounds like Mokele-mbembe all over again (@Tronvillain:), where an independent modern source is absolutely necessary to parse what's happening here without WP:OR. Seems there's likely some more dinosaurs-in-Africa influence going on, including some potential chain-pulling from locals, as Loxton and Prothero discuss in Abominable Science. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing whether it is real or not (I'm inclined to think it is not), but whether it is notable enough for inclusion. The believe of yours (or mine for that matter) on its existence is irrelevant here. You are misunderstanding OR, so please don't bring that into the discussion. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring Heuvelman's as clearly fringe, the second source there is just the Journal of The East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society article again (which is trivial mention, not extensive coverage), and hilariously the Alone in the Sleeping-sickness Country is repeating the wrong piece of that article (an earlier paragraph about Clement Hill) as "dingonek." --tronvillain (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the dearth of reliable sources fails to meet general notability guidelines. A single source from the early 1900s does not imply anything even like WP:SUSTAINED interest in this apocryphal animal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given three separate sources. Hzh (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of them are reliable — two 'I saw a dinosaur in Africa!/He saw a dinosaur in Africa!' sources from the early 20th century, and the usual discussion among modern pseudoscience proponents do not reliable sources make (from the 1912 reference: "a survival of some extinct race of saurians is a thing to thrill the imagination of the scientific world", classic colonial living dinosaur stuff—academia has moved far, far beyond this). See, for example, Loxton and Prothero on the notorious Mokele-mbembe. There's a solid case for why we require modern reliable sources for this stuff. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply claiming that they are unreliable does not make it so, especially when you don't know that journals are academic sources. Whether they are real or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability, which is what we are discussing. Hzh (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me: I'm not concerned about whether or not the entity in question is real (I often write about entities on the site that certainly aren't real in this sense), I'm concerned about the sources you've provided. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you perfectly well. You are arguing that old journals (academic sources) are unreliable because the subject is not discussed in more recent academic sources, which is ridiculous given that recent academic sources are unlikely to discuss it because they are likely not "real". So you are in fact arguing about the "realness" of the subject. You have essentially misunderstood what the sources are meant for - they are not there to show that it exists, but that it was discussed, therefore showing its notability. The argument that the journals are unreliable simply because the subject may not be real is a false one. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that two early 20th century sources—primary sources, no less—don't establish notability. Folklorists and biologists talk about this sort of thing a fair amount, we simply lack any modern sources discussing the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More recent academics aren't likely to discuss it because there is no new information (although you can find many passing mentions), and you have already dismissed any modern sources that discussed it as work of cryptozoologists (therefore what they say don't count as far as you are concerned), thus the subject cannot be notable because any discussion involving it are not valid. This argument just goes round in circles. Hzh (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern academics—such as Donald Prothero—have produce lengthy works focused on related topics, such as Mokele-mbembe. I've mentioned this a few times now. Additionally, cryptozoologists are simply not reliable sources. If you can find sources that establish notability, this discussion evaporates. Otherwise this just doesn't seem to meet the project's notability guidelines. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age alone is not a problem or an indicator of unreliability, as bloodofox is well aware - extensive coverage in old sources could easily establish something as notable even if it's no longer being discussed today (notability doesn't expire). The problem is that for a fringe topic like this, there's nothing like the extensive coverage that would establish notability. The journal article could justifiably be used in an article for a notable subject, but does not itself establish notability. --tronvillain (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a clear delete. There appears to be essentially nothing (as discussed above) to establish notability. From WP:NFRINGE, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers", and cryptozoology proponents like Coleman, Shuker, or Heuvelmans are in no sense independent for the purposes of establishing notability. They are definitely fringe. Which leaves us with the primary source and a couple of "news of the weird" offhand repetitions of that primary source. --tronvillain (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hzh. It is irrelevant whether one believes it exists or not. What is relevant is that the subject has been reported in reliable independent sources. We do not go by truth here. We go by what reliable sources say. Also, considering the age of reporting and the fact that Kenya is a developing country, I doubt one will find newer/more online reporting without reference to the old reporting. Considering the age, one is perhaps more likely to find them in old books/publications. The fact that one is able to find some online sources is just fortunate and indeed, adds to the notability of the subject. Besides, it is part of the country's folklore just as the Loch Ness Monster is to Scotland. There is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster as most grown and intelligent adults know or should know, yet we have an article on that. It is irrelevant how old the sources are. It was notable enough to be reported and re-reported. There is no time limit to notability. The very fact that there are sources on the subject establishes notability and passes WP:GNG. Tamsier (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable, independent sources have reported on the Dingonek? Which source describes it as "part of the country's folklore"? –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no one is arguing that this shouldn't be an article because it doesn't exist. I have specifically argued for keeping relatively obscure folklore in this past, but in this case the sources don't actually support it. There's essentially a single primary source, a few contemporary repetitions of that source, and then a variety of later cryptozoologists also repeating the same source. For a fringe topic, that's absolutely not enough to meet notability. --tronvillain (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Ultimately, we have several sources going back 100 years. From the nontrivial stuff already mentioned published by the East Africa Natural History Society in 1913 to this 1918 article in Maclean's to the many entries in encyclopedias of mythological creatures and/or cryptozoology like Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (published by ABC-CLIO) and then the lesser albeit nontrivial coverage in places like On the Track of Unknown Animals (published by Routledge). Weak Keep because I'd still like to see more, of course, but these seems enough here to pass GNG.

As elsewhere, the delete !votes seem to rely on the idea that all sources connected to cryptozoology or cryptozoologists must be discounted. Given the multiple old sources, it's not even clear that it wouldn't be notable if we discounted the more recent sources (would require more digging, as a lot of the material would doubtless not be online). But to be clear, my position isn't based on the "if" of offline sources. As elsewhere, I reject the idea that folklore is the sole domain of folkloristics. Here we have a folklore subject that's been covered for a hundred years, with full articles/entries dedicated to it in several sources. That's notability. This isn't a biology article. There's no need to frame these as scientific claims (we don't need to include the pretense of scientific documentation that Eberhart seems fond of in order to say "this is what people have said about this mythological/legendary/whatever creature"). Does that mean we should include cryptozoo, cryptozoologist blogs, or some content farm's listicle? No. But an encyclopedia published by Routledge or ABC-CLIO is not the same. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear for readers, we have exactly two sources that in some way meet WP:RS, and they're both from the early 20th century and both primary sources. The rest, fringe sources that echo the above while excitedly going through the usual living dinosaur motions, must comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND, including Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures (like cryptozoologist Roy Mackal's notorious A Living Dinosaur?—published by E.J. Brill (!)—it's an example of a fringe piece that made it through the editorial process of an otherwise reputable publisher—it happens).

As for "I reject the idea that folklore is the sole domain of folkloristics", that's a bizarre statement and does seem to imply some kind of anti-academic sentiment. However, you are of course aware that we also frequently employ reliable sources from biologists and science writers when we discuss the subculture of cryptozoology, especially works by Donald Prothero.

This appears to be yet another editor-aimed attack vote in defense of the subculture's 'treatment' on the platform. If you want to discuss getting WP:FRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE changed in a manner in which we can open the gates to Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Barn at Geocities or whatever, this isn't the venue for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another attack vote ... Just not even bothering with the pretense of approaching this topic without a battlefield/povfighter mentality anymore? As before, WP:FRINGE, etc. is just fine the way it is, thanks. The issue is your application of it.Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Barn at Geocities ... a reductio ad absurdum that directly contradicts what I actually said. I've made no secret that I find bloodofox an extraordinarily toxic, relentlessly tendentious editor, as much as he does good work on some other topics. As such I won't be engaging with this response further here. (edit conflict) I see that while I was responding bloodofox edited his response to include that diff that he keeps linking to as thought to invalidate anything I say. Again, misplaced WP:POVFIGHTER nonsense (see here for an elaboration -- it doesn't belong here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you're aware, "no personal attacks" is core site policy ("extraordinarily toxic", etc.). I get that you've got an axe to grind and that always you're keen to appear out of the woodwork whenever you think it's time to place a vote or make a revert in favor of the subculture (complete with insults aimed at yours truly) before vanishing to do so next time the opportunity arises, but, readers, this diff really does say it all. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm If you think I'm violating NPA, there are other venues for that. It's not a personal attack, of course, but a claim you're backing up in real time, linking to the same diff you just linked to, doing nothing other than the usual bad faith/conspiracy ravings and pouring more poison into the well... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you had declared you weren't engaging with this response further here? To be frank, I think your time is best spent in these situations finding WP:RS-complaint sources rather than stretching yourself in every possible position to get fringe sources on to these articles. Find reliable sources, and discussions like these evaporate. It's the same old song and dance for fringe topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zolof the Rock & Roll Destroyer. Only vote. No prejudice on reversion/renomination. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Ratti

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

Long-standing (Sept 2017) "notability" and "possible undisclosed paid editing" tags. If the article is kept, these should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band Zolof the Rock & Roll Destroyer, which may not be notable either, but while the article exists, a redirect is appropriate. I found a source confirming some of his work, but there's nowhere near enough to base an article on. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Since the article was improved, opinions are split, and this has already had 4 weeks of discussion. Michig (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Erik Gould

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

All of the sources for this article on a journalist are his own articles and are not WP:INDEPENDENT. He's won Pulitzer Center grants ... which are not Pulitzer Prizes ... so no inherent notability. Wolfson5 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. Therefore, the subject fails WP:NBIO; he is simply not notable enough to warrant an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any independent sources (but found a lot of things he wrote, which don't count per Wolfson5) to establish notability --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass any of the criteria listed in WP:JOURNALIST, the relevant notability guideline for this kind of writer. - tucoxn\^talk 16:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article was flagged for deletion, I have added a large number of reference citations independent of Gould's writing, including reportage from CNN, Adweek, Bustle and other news outlets on Gould's journalism. I have also added works that have cited Gould, including congressional reports and scholarly publications. I believe these additions further establish the subject's notability and relevance.Dee Roberts (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article has received significant copy editing, which includes the addition of several references, as stated in the !vote above this relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The citations recently added by the article creator seem to be about stories by the article subject and not about the article subject himself. They doesn't seem to prove notability under the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST, the relevant notability guideline for this kind of writer. Here are those criteria:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The closest is criterion #1, "is widely cited by peers" but what is required to meet that is coverage about him which analyzes his significance in that regard. The sources added simply show that his work exists, as opposed to telling people who he is as a person. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. - tucoxn\^talk 15:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The examples of works citing his articles do serve to show that the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST #1, "The person is ... widely cited by peers or successors." Citation does not require coverage about the author of the work cited, nor analysis of an author's significance. From Citation, "A citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source. .... Citations have several important purposes: to uphold intellectual honesty (or avoiding plagiarism), to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way, and to help the reader gauge the strength and validity of the material the author has used." Coverage about an author would be considered literary biography; analysis of an author's significance would be considered literary criticism. Neither is mentioned in WP:JOURNALIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy journalist but does not yet meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. K. Sethi

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

Seems to fail GNG. Appears to be founder of numerous organisations for which we do not have articles and independent sourcing is non-existent. Was PRODed in the past as it is an obvious conflict of interest creation/promo and I've just had another look and cannot see why this guy satisfies our requirements. Clearly a busy man but there is no clear substance to anything, not even what appear to be self-created trade unions. If any of those bodies are in fact themselves notable then he could be mentioned in those articles. Sitush (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any good 3rd-party sources to support WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and I can't think of any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. Reddragon7 (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prithviraj Sukumaran. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Productions

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

Non-notable production house owned by a notable person. They have only produced one film so far which is yet to release. I redirected this article to Prithviraj Sukumaran per WP:ATD but it was reverted by the creator. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prithviraj Sukumaran. Not currently notable enough for a standalone article. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Would agree that Prithviraj Sukumaran is suitable. As far as the company, the sources are basically general announcements. Nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Boucard

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

Non-notable basketball player who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Coverage is all routine. Undrafted in NBA, and the NBL is not amongst those listed in notability criteria. His college career doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 26 December 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, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and meets none of the basketball notability criteria at WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masters of Cinema. There is consensus to not keep this, but disagreement as to whether a merger is appropriate. The redirection is a compromise that allows subsequent editorial consensus to determine what, if any, content should be merged from history. Sandstein 08:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters of Cinema releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 12:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can, and have in the past, argued that this is not a non-notable list. Holsheimer (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does sourcing from Amazon and Blu-Ray help making this notable? Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the main article there are sources about the notability of the collection as a whole. They are lacking here, but as I understand WP:LISTN states that the list as a whole should be notable not individual items. Holsheimer (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line itself is notable, the WP:CATALOGUE of every single release is not. --wooden superman 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a notable collection. As a cinephile, collector and member of the online cine-phile community I refer to this page frequently for both current and historic information because the Masters of Cinema series is the most prestigious in the UK by a mile. The idea that the list is not notable is risible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.128.41 (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid split from a clearly notable parent article that shows that the list topic is notable with coverage in reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Masters of Cinema. I'm not seeing anything that suggests that MoC is anywhere close to the stature of the Criterion Collection. In any case, the MoC article is so short, the list could be moved there. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am inclined to agree with WP:NOTCATALOG, I could understand these titles being grouped in a category together, I am not sure I see the point of this list beyond being a catalog. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Masters of Cinema. The films released are obviously relevant to a discussion of the label/brand. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Masters of Cinema, and collapse table by default. I hatnoted Masters of Cinema for refimprove, yet right now, if that one was under discussion, I'd vote weak delete. Despite the visible love here of cinephiles, there's no mainstream coverage of the label - they only get brief mentions when they release films. Apparently the Masters of Cinema group (and with it the line) was bought by Eureka Entertainment. Nine pages of a targeted Google search for "Eureka Entertainment" also turns up not a single in-depth profile of the company - just name drops with the announcements of movies they released. This almost seems like a classic case of notability not being inherited, unless someone can convincingly argue or find a carve-out in WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masters of Cinema – I am unsure if the content is really worth merging but I have no prejudice against a merge. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keep arguments far outweigh the sole delete. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Petrosyan (singer)

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

I don't believe this person is notable enough. A notability tag has sat on this article since April with no improvements being made. Beasting123 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed a dead link and a facebook post from the refs. One of the remaining articles is about the win, one is an interview. The others might be about her -- most have a photo of her -- and they're fairly lengthy, but since my computer doesn't seem to recognize Armenian and offer a translation, can't tell. I tried to see if she had an article in the Armenian wikipedia, and while there are two women named Մարիամ Պետրոսյան, she doesn't appear to be one of them. Got here from list of women-related.valereee (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:Basic. My tablet does translate and several of the articles have biographical information, including one that talks more about her studies at university. Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. On my to-do list. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:Basic. Per WP:MUSIC for winning a TV show about music in her country. I also note that the article was put through an AfD as late as February 2018 which resulted in a Keep decision.BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus that the subject fails to satisfy WP:POET and WP:GNG. Michig (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tyrell

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

Non-notable poet and academic, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:POET / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing evidence that he's notable as a poet, teacher, or actor. The lack of significant independent coverage means that he also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete My search didn't turn up anything to show he meets any notability standards that I can find. Significant independent coverage from reliable sources is missing.Sandals1 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failure of WP:POET / WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per clear consensus. Michig (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Christmas

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

Autobiography of author whose notability is marginal. Google search shows this Wikipedia article and advertisements for her books and poetry, but no independent reviews. Recommend a Soft Delete so that a neutral editor can write a BLP about her if they can establish notability. However, this article is not a useful start and can be blown up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion. No suitable sources. Hard delete, with no suitable sources, there is nothing her to start a proper article with. At best WP:TNT applies, ~~should~~ in the unlikely event that notability-attesting sources be discovered. Refer to WP:NAUTHOR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC) underlined added 02:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No TNT, no revisions. Sources are ultra-weak and promotional. I removed poemhunter.com source, which was a wiki-style author profile presumably controlled by article subject. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, have been unable to find anything useable, appears to be a prolific self publisher of poetry that has not been picked up in wikinotable places, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, reminder for budding authors, especially for ones who are tempted to write their own wikiarticle (hello Cindychris33:)) - WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails significant coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete per WP:TNT. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points made already to delete and can't add anything useful Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. Overwhelming consensus that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Grace

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

I don’t see how she meets WP:NARTIST or GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:ANYBIO, #3 "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." It's very likely that there are other sources, which would show that she meets WP:GNG - I will have a look and add some, though the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography should be sufficient. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m primarily nominating on the NArtist front, but from a bio standpoint, all I’m seeing in this article is stuff about the men in her life, not her own. I don’t think much is out there about her for an article.Trillfendi (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added two more sources, and more information about her work. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as listing in the Dictionary of National Biography is the actual example in the notability guidelines for how someone passes WP:ANYBIO#3. Bakazaka (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inclusion in the Oxford dictionary, and other items mentioned above, are enough here, given the era. Deltion here diminishes the encyclopedia; given the time, it's going to be difficult to find detailed sources. the fact that we have a few is enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO being in the ODNB, also, having engravings of her portraits in the British National Portrait Gallery (see here) contributes towards notability (i note that references to these were already in the article when nominated). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB entry clearly meets ANYBIO#3.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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