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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillian Laumeister[edit]

Maximillian Laumeister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cites contain negligible biographical detail, refs to BitListen are passing curiosities, Listen to Wikipedia isn't even anything to do with Laumeister, nothing in a WP:BEFORE. Notability of Laumeister or BitListen is negligible at best. Previous AFD was "no consensus" due to no-one bothering to participate. David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. I found five articles on Google News about the subject, three mentions in books. This guy is not even close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearian, please note that according to WP:GNG the quality of coverage in verifiable, reliable sources is the determiner of whether something is notable on Wikipedia, not just appeals to numbers - see WP:ARBITRARY. Non-notable is one thing, but the sentiment "not even close to being notable" comes off to me as somewhat reactionary in light of the article's sourcing in mainstream tech media, and the additional source and scholarly paper which I was able to find with just a bit of smart googling. Remember that the guidelines are what determine notability, not WP:IDONTKNOWIT. K.Koopa (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect to BitListen - Changing my !vote from Keep to Redirect. Per Pichpich and Jbh, I am starting to understand that Laumeister himself is not notable as a biographical subject, per se. I stand by what I said about sources establishing notability, but for BitListen rather than Laumeister specifically. K.Koopa (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like I have enough experience to be the final arbiter of notability based on the sourcing, but it's worth noting that I did dig up and add two more secondary sources that reference the subject, including an academic journal article on data sonification that calls the BitListen project "emblematic". The subject is definitely not WP:MILL, as article is not cookie cutter, i.e. does not "resemble [...] other articles by containing mostly the same words with a few fill-in-the-blanks". Regarding WP:SIGCOV, multiple independent reliable sources do address the subject directly, such that "no original research is needed to extract the content", in accordance with the notability guideline. For borderline articles like this one, it's not very informative IMO to just cite guideline pages broadly, see WP:VAGUEWAVE - notability needs to be decided based on the actual content of the guidelines. K.Koopa (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • The sources you added don't seem to talk about the article subject, though. Perhaps there's material for an article on BitListen - but is there any actual substantive coverage of Laumeister? - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, it appears that in June of this year, you actually quietly removed a citation of a direct media interview with Laumeister using the reasoning "no way is this reliable", though I could find no criteria under WP:PUS or WP:RS that would substantiate such a decision. I also noticed in the edit history that you recently edited a second citation out of the article - the edit was made during this very AfD - with the reasoning "no subject of this article is mentioned in this reference". However, the citation is from a reliable source that indeed substantiates a statement in the article. Please be more careful with your edits in the future.
      
      Whether the references help establish notability is for consensus here to decide - when you remove reliable citations that substantiate information in the article, but that you personally don't believe "show notability", that impedes editors' ability to come to a consensus with full information during this AfD process. I know that what you are doing seems harmless, but to an outsider, it could appear that you are removing information that you personally believe shouldn't be taken into account during the AfD, to tip the AfD in your favor.
      
      For now I have restored the citations and text in question until consensus is reached in this AfD, so that potential AfD contributors will be able to make their own unbiased decisions. If you believe that a source is unreliable due to reasons outside of WP:PUS, please feel free to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page if this article still exists after the AfD, but removing reliably cited sections of the article that you don't agree with during an active AfD is not the way to go about it. Please understand that there will be plenty of time to clean up the article after notability is determined. K.Koopa (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You used 99bitcoins, a ridiculously low-quality cryptocurrency blog, as a source for a BLP. I've removed it again. The bad sourcing remains bad sourcing, and makes the article appear much more puffed-up than its actual Reliable Sources content warrants. The strong sourcing required of WP:BLPs still applies to articles under an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that the removal itself of the 99bitcoins interview in June was most likely done in good faith, though I can't say I personally agree after reviewing WP:BLPRS, especially since the source is not tied to potentially contentious statements in the article. The issue here is your denial of the source's existence - or did you legitimately forget that you removed that source in June?
          
          At this point if you have specific concerns about the source's reliability, then please elaborate, that's what this discussion is for - it's not enough to just hand-wave and say that the source is "ridiculously low-quality". From a cursory look at the 99bitcoins site, it looks to me like the company's articles are written by paid writers, they have their staff and headquarters listed on their about page, and the founder has guest-blogged on Bitcoin.com, presumably a reliable publication in this space. But again, the quality of the sources in regards to notability is a question for the contributors to this AfD - by reinstating contentious deletions you run the risk of impeding the ability of this AfD to come to an unbiased consensus with full information. The correct way to go about this would have been to mention the source and mention that you removed it in June because you believed it was (un)reliable - not to play dumb and ask me whether any sources directly interview Laumeister after having removed such a source yourself in June.
          
          In regards to the NPR citation you removed, keep in mind that a citation is nothing more than a reliable source that substantiates information in an article. As far as whether a citation should be included in an article, it's not relevant whether the citation "looks like it puffs up" the article - that's a notability question for the editors here in the AfD.
          
          I also noticed that you again deleted the (in my view) unquestionably reliably-sourced paragraph on BitListen's relation to its notable derivative work Listen To Wikipedia. I'm not going to turn this into an edit war, instead I encourage participants in this AfD to compare David's revision with my rollback and form their own opinion. I don't think I am being unreasonable on this - above all we need to keep decisions unbiased in here. I feel like we are very much lacking additional informed viewpoints in this AfD at this point, so I encourage others to weigh in. K.Koopa (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Striked the above sentence, with my apologies. I didn't realize that Listen To Wikipedia was already mentioned near the beginning of the article. I agree it's reasonable as per your edit not to give it a second mention, regardless of sourcing quality. My other concerns still stand, however.) K.Koopa (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • David, with all due respect, it looks like you have a history of deleting information from articles to hide the information from AfD participants. As quoted from a participant in an unrelated AfD: "The point is that we can decide if it's rubbish or not, rather than you telling us that it's rubbish and that we're not to even look at it." [1]. K.Koopa (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I remove bad sources when they're bad sources, as I stated. This is a BLP, we don't keep bad sources in the article. An interview in an unreliable promotional publication is not a source that should be considered for a BLP, of all things. This is really basic sourcing stuff, and you're pretending these really basic sourcing rules don't exist - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Biographical coverage is trivially related to a piece of software that got some "Hey! Neat!" coverage. It does not meet the significant coverage requirement of GNG nor does he meet any of the biographical notability requirements which could be applicable ie PROF (mentioned in 2 papers), ANYBIO, or CREATIVE. Jbh ^Talk 18:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then possibly redirect to BitListen which is the only thing Laumeister is known for. The next questions are of course: "Is BitListen notable?" and "Is Listen to Wikipedia notable?" My first instinct is to say "yes, barely" in both cases. Pichpich (talk) 19:18, 18 August 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism101[edit]

Socialism101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clear failure to demonstrate NWEB notability. While I found a couple of duplicated entries in like-minded blogs, I didn't find anywhere talking about it, let along in detail etc etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Nosebagbear (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:45, 15 August 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 Hainish Cycle. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shing[edit]

Shing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly cited for 10 years, containing lots of WP:OR. No real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I boldly redirected this to Hainish Cycle yesterday, and I still believe that to be the correct outcome. There is insufficient material for a standalone article. To the best of my knowledge, I have written more GAs and FAs about Ursula Le Guin's work than any other editor. I am very familiar with the source material. The Shing are characters that are only discussed in the context of a single novel, City of Illusions. Any substantive material about them must be covered there of necessity, because it is integral to the plot. All other other mentions of them amount to the fact that they are a brief part of the history of the Hainish universe; as such, that history needs to be covered at Hainish Cycle anyway. There isn't anything else in the secondary literature, and I don't think there ever will be, because there isn't much more in the primary material. Redirect. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Vanamonde93. Since they seem to be more of an expert on Le Guin's work, and I trust their opinion on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it has useful data. It is not currently included in City of Illusions, and includes the significant later remarks by Le Guin. --GwydionM (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a well written article which has been worked on by a significant number of editors for over a decade (i.e. has proven ongoing viability). An average daily viewing level of 18 seems respectable. If the concensus is for deletion then the material should be merged with that of City of Illusions instead of redirection to Hainish Cycle as attempted. The latter article ranges across Le Guin's complex parallel universe, containing only a single sentence on the Shing. Buistr (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Arguments such as it being "useful", "well written", or getting page views are not generally accepted for keeping articles. We need notability from independent reliable sources, which this doesn't appear to have. But page views is a good argument for having a redirect rather than complete deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per previous arguments, does not appear independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect possibly as a preface to WP:TNT. There seems to be a decent amount of academic discussion of the Shing as they relate to Le Gunn's body of work (See "Shing"+"Le+Guin"&btnG= this GS search)]) which might justify an independent article. However this article has no relation to that possibility and is rather a bunch of in-universe OR best addressed in Hainish Cycle. Jbh ^Talk 19:05, 18 August 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. (Sorry for any confusion, I got the wrong button when trying to close this) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Son Is Gay[edit]

My Son Is Gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Son Is Gay Stats)

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

Does not qualifies WP:NFO or WP:GNG, no signs of notability, no reliable sources found to establish this is a notable movie. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the movie has received coverage in WP:RS and meets the criteria of WP:Film. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Harshil169, WP:FILM is not a criteria it's a project. You can find criteria for movies WP:NFO here. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per sources that are in the article. Even a quick Google search reveal sources such as this and this. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SL93, Yes there are news articles but, how that is going to fullfil WP:NFO?? having news is not enough and that doesn't mark the notability. coverage should be for some longer time. Such films are new so they are destined to be reported in news but that doesn't mean they are notable. Probably my understanding of WP:NFO would have been limited, but I would love to hear from you on, how these films are notable under NFO. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You're actually the second person who I came across recently who confused "Other evidence of notability" as what is required. Those are listed for if the general notability guidelines (WP:N) isn't satisfied which is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There is no requirement anywhere for needing coverage from a longer time. Not all films appear in the news per my experience in trying to create film articles. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SL93, * I will try and ignore your personal comments.

  • The sources you suggested seems to be unreliable as, Asian Movie Plus is self-publishing (They kind of collect half of the review from you and then add to it)
  • The Second source (thenewsminute) you suggested is similarly problematic, as their editorial processes are unknown. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It seems this film is yet to be released, per this article of The Hindu. BTW, its alternative name is En Magan Magizhvan, which might help in searching the relevant sources, e.g. see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is quite notable. Maybe just some simple improvements would bring it up to standard. CLCStudent (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : This is not even officially released in India or anywhere, according to [|this] and [|this]. So I don't know how it fits in to the frame of notability WP:NFF thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for you to vote when you nominated this for deletion. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current references are enough to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 18 August 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) 22:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jackson (activist)[edit]

Daniel Jackson (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. ... discospinster _talk 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page should be kept. I've seen tons more that are years old with just 1 article reference and the rest being the person's social medias. Doeke is quite known. Thonkingman (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thonkingman (talk • contribs) creator of the pageeditor blocked for socking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and believe it is a stunt and a hoax created by WP:MEAT The creator voted keep on Free Republic of Verdis and it was deleted via AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis. All the editors who voted "keep" started their edits in Wikipedia either on the day or after Free Republic of Verdis was AfDed. One of the voted keep editor 49.199.101.96 indicated on 21:55, July 30, 2019 that User:SwedenAviator is the president of Free Republic of Verdis and this editor was the WP:SOCK and believe Daniel Jackson (activist), is the so called "President" this republic is the president on draft page which were deleted more than 10 times as hoax - see here] and all creators are blocked for WP:SOCK. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's not even wrong; he's neither notable nor an activist. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no evidence that the subject of the article meets any notability standards and there is nothing to suggest he can be considered an activist. Dunarc (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an example of promotional goobledygook. So we count his number of Instagram and YouTube followers as a collective, assuming there is no overlap. That is lieing with statistics if I have ever seen it, worse than the huge $12,000 average annual salary for Yale class of 1935 mentioned in the classic book, OK, I just remember that figure because today it seem absurdly low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, thanks to Cassiopeia for the analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cassiopedia. Bookscale (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Snow salt block. Enough already. duffbeerforme (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Could be WP:TOOSOON or could be never. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - Creator is a confirmed SOCK - see here where Master SOCK is User:SwedenAviator who creator more than 10 times of [[2]] (Draft:Free Republic of Verdis which has been salted in draft space). Request Republic of Verdis (topic) to be salted as well which at current is redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute and salt this AfD topic as well. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for national heads of state just by declaring themselves as founders of unrecognized micronations — even heads of state of real, established and recognized countries still have to pass WP:GNG on evidence of media coverage about them. But none of the sources present in the article even get him off the starting blocks in terms of passing GNG at all. I've seen people try to stake notability on Instagram posts and YouTube videos before, obviously, but trying to stake it on Roblox user groups is a new one on me. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 15 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Natural Born Killers characters[edit]

List of Natural Born Killers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is extended regurgitation of plot information; no evidence the characters are notable outside of the film, nor any reason this material needs to spun out of the main film article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sequel, no list-of needed, and zero sources to go with the overlong character descriptions...please take your film armchair psychiatry recaps elsewhere. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Character lists for a single film don't make any sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a completely needless split from the film's main article, and as there is nothing here but unsourced plot summaries, there is nothing worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to insufficient notability of characters to warrant a spin-off article. I would venture that it is possible for there to be standalone articles about the two main characters, but that is unproven here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 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. That something was a scam does not automatically deny it notability. Sources have been provided suggesting the subject meets WP:GNG, and have not been convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VestiVille[edit]

VestiVille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The “festival” was simply a scam. It was nowhere near the level of Fyre Festival though any music event that has one little managerial issue is now lazily compared to Fyre. Other than that, this is completely unnotable. Trillfendi (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily notable. Nom is right as regards it being lazily described as like Fyre and getting cheap coverage, but the fact remains that it does have that coverage. NME, IQ, bbc just for a few. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 3 sentences for God’s sake. There is no sustained notability of it. It fails NEVENT. Nothing about this article is encyclopedic nor valuable to the encyclopedia. Trillfendi (talk)

Those are completely different delete grounds than you originally proposed - I'll have a look on the NEVENT now, length isn't grounds for delete - there's loads of sourcing, and you can easily expand it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length had nothing to do with deletion, it’s clearly a statement of how poor the article is and the fact that it was so uneventful that only 3 sentences could be formed about it (a lot of the artists in the so-called “lineup” weren’t even verifiable), one of them being that it was “Fyre 2.0”.Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am disinclined to say NEVENT disqualifies it. Obviously there was an immediate rush of sources. Then there was about a month's pause, and various comparison re-considerations/compare & contrasts started coming out: the IQ source above, france inter, Pollstar (even discounting the various direct/indirect quoted 3rd party analysis), given that's within a week, that's about as broad a temporal coverage as we can get at this point. We have international coverage, thus showing depth, breadth and reasonable duration. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it hasn’t been reported on in a month.... Trillfendi (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the IQ source was written on the 1st of August, only 4 days ago? Nosebagbear (talk)

Wow, an article about Woodstock 50 and a bunch of other festivals. Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing insight and dramatic analysis aren't needed Nosebagbear (talk)

• Delete a fesitival that didnt happen needs really good coverage to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's an event whether the event is "VestiVille" or "Cancellation of VestiVille" - in lieu of there being an NFESTIVAL, there aren't any different criteria for these two. The same level of coverage is needed Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a scam/or getting canceled does not strip it of notability, it may actually give it more publicity (read: substantial coverage) than if it were a real event/or if it held. It's not even clear that it was a scam (BBC says it was canceled "because of safety issues") but the nom implied that it was a scam with apparent certainty but not a single evidence. But what's more important is that there are multiple reliable sources giving it in depth coverage [3], [4], [5]. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn’t a scam then why were they using false advertisement of Cardi B voice used in the “promo” video (sound familiar) if she was really on the lineup? Oh but she couldn’t have been anyway because she was touring festivals in England at that time then was forced to pull out of those shows to recover from botched surgery. Red flag number one. But I’m just making shit up right? It’s not like no one could see this play out in real time. A “festival” with little to no information about itself and no infrastructure yet claiming it’s booking big names is called fraud. The “coverage” you offer isn’t “in depth” on anything; they’re only more Fyre Festival comparisons and a bunch of tweets! MILL. The festival is not going to get in depth coverage from something like Vanity Fair or the New York Times because WP:LASTING. Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am afraid, I have no idea who "Cardi B" is; not least what he does and I have no interest to know. I am not in the position to judge "scamness" of the event. What I know is the city's mayor, through the BBC said the event was canceled "because of safety issues." Neither the Mayor nor the BBC and not even Wikipedia called the event a scam.

2. My 3 sources are well known media companies, I did not link to any Tweet. I began to wonder whether you really read my sources or you're confusing them with a tweet elsewhere.

3. Illegality of event/action does not strip it of notability in anyway. I have said this and I am repeating it. Otherwise, we would not have articles on murder and scam. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She’s only a Grammy-winning artist with 3 number one hits who the festival “claimed” was the headliner to lure their victims to the middle of nowhere with no intention of giving them a real show (ah, that’s called a scam) due to their obvious entire lack of planning to actually do a festival and refuse to give refunds. Now clearly I said the articles given relied on some embedded tweets to give accounts of the day. That’s not in depth whatsoever. It’s no more than what entertainment news sites like do everyday for celebrity gossip. The 5 sentences of this article don’t go “in depth” about it either. The reality is the event (or lack thereof) was does meet notability to have a Wikipedia article about it. The difference between this and the cancelled Woodstock 50 is breadth and quality of the coverage. And what do we have here? That Buzzfeed atrocity can’t even be called journalism. It’s a listacle of memes and tweets ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a lot of sources in French, including some from particularly reliable outlets such as Le Soir (already used in the article), the RTBF [6] and France Inter [7] (note that the latter was published a full month after the event so there's a hint that coverage is lasting). There's also a fairly detailed report published 10 days after the fact that includes info about the aftermath (including the arrest and release of two organizers, possible reimbursements, and so on) and would be an excellent source to expand the article.[8]. There's also coverage in Flemish including a "how did it all go wrong" analysis, written two weeks after the event, in the very reliable NRC Handelsblad. Pichpich (talk) 20:15, 18 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Ridge Lacrosse[edit]

Glen Ridge Lacrosse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-notable high school sports team. Any encyclopedic material should be merged to Glen Ridge High School. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. US high school sports teams are not notable, and the lengthy history section is egregiously under-sourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete high school sports teams never are notable enough to have seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Glen Ridge High School. High school sports teams rarely receive enough third-party coverage and this is no exception. Note that 4 of 7 current references are to the team's website and the other three are routine coverage in local newspapers. If the article is kept, it should be cleaned up because the tone is not always neutral. (e.g. "This is showing that Carl Houser and the Glen Ridge program are building a winning tradition and consistent success year in and year out.") Pichpich (talk) 21:07, 18 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Coalition for GeoInformatics[edit]

International Coalition for GeoInformatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the original article from 2005 [9] received zero citations after 15 years.[10] a blog post by the lead autor (J. Klump) declared the initiative defunct 10 years ago.[11] fgnievinski (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Couldn't find any sources aside from the announcement paper already linked in the citations, with the exception that the subject was referenced once with a short background in a book preface on google books (titled "American Paleontologist"). I don't see any good sourcing on google search/news/archives. Seems to fail WP:GNG for this reason. Do remember that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, so if it was notable in the past it's still notable, however my belief is that it probably was not ever notable. K.Koopa (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. I see no evidence it was ever a going concern or, if it was, that it got any coverage or recognition either in general or within its field. Jbh ^Talk 19:28, 18 August 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 Death of Jeffrey Epstein (I've redirected the article, merging can be done from the article history). Having read through the discussion (as well as the discussion at the other AFD, which is ongoing) there's a clear consensus at this time to merge any appropriate content into the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article, which was created on Aug 13, after this AFD started. I note many of the keep votes are prior to this new article being created, and sufficient editors changed their opinion in this AFD as a result to find in favour of merging rather than outright keeping the article as is. Acknowledging the recentness of this event, it seems prudent to remind all involved to observe our not news policy, and the recentism supplementary explanation to NPOV, when deciding what content to merge. I note that the AFD on the merge target is still open for another day, at this time consensus seems in favour of keeping that article, but that's for someone else to decide at the appropriate time. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Post AFD closure, content has continued to be added. I have redirected to the merge target, any content that should be merged can be done from the last revision. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories[edit]

Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

An unnecessary fork of Jeffrey Epstein, where a line or two stating that conspiracy theories exist would suffice. bd2412 T 20:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article details an emerging phenomenon. Plenty of reliable sources are covering the existence of conspiracy theories and, although it is unclear how long they will persist, at the moment it looks sufficiently notable. Consequently, it is too early to make a decision. Philip Cross (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is too early to make a decision, how can it already be sufficiently notable? bd2412 T 20:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's three days later now, and this article still doesn't relay a single conspiracy theory. The emerging notable phenomena from reliable sources are skepticism and baseless accusation, either against a lone suspect or a generic glob of Russians and "rich and powerful". Just an indiscriminate collection of unconnected dots, unless we're discriminating by proximity to Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepOther death conspiracy theory pages exist, such as Princess Diana. That warranted another page and many others, like MLK. It is a very notable topic, even the President of the United States is tweeting about it. Discussion of conspiracies is best kept off his biographical page, as has been done with JFK and RFK. It is mentioned, but only further explored on their corresponding conspiracy theories articles. There is a vast precedent for it, and as more days pass, more information will be published. For those reasons I fully support keeping this article. HAL333 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald Trump tweeting about something does not make it notable, especially how much he tweets on things. Anyway here the question is not notability per se, but demonstrating that a seperate article is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with OP this is an unnecessary fork. I would add that it has the potential for POV problems as well. There is no reason the reactions to the apparent suicide can't be included in Epstein's bio for now. petrarchan47คุก 21:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Death of Jeffery Epstein petrarchan47คุก 17:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, but not to the Epstein article, where we are trying to keep this stuff to a minimum. Merge it to List of conspiracy theories, where we have similar material about the Clintons and others. I was going to propose this, but I thought I would wait until the news cycle moves on; then we can trim this and put it where it belongs. Merge it to Death of Jeffrey Epstein now that that article exists and contains a thorough exposition of the subject. The conspiracy theories should be a section at that article rather than a standalone article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There is clearly a need for this article. The official narrative of suicide seems to be widely questioned in the media and by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. People on the right are blaming the Clintons and people on the left are blaming Trump and the Russians. The main Epstein article isn't an appropriate place for all of this information, so a separate article is absolutely necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There is notability surrounding this topic from a variety of sources. This isn't a one person/one group conspiracy, there are many types from both different sides. Having a completely different article makes sense as it lists all of the possible ones in an appropriate location that doesn't end up cluttering the main page. 216.106.148.248 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a clear need of this article as this article can be kept in a neutral state, (in other words, this isn't a one-sided conspiracy theory). Deleting the article would be a clear bad idea... whose bright idea was it anyway? M.W.B.A.B.^{Talk to me!} 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein.Keep and later merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Notable enough for its own article, but now that we also have the other article, that would be a good target for a merge. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete The man hasn’t even had an autopsy yet people want to make conspiracy theory articles about his death? Absurdly inappropriate. If a federal investigation finds suspicious activity on his death then include it in HIS article. Fuck’s sake it hasn’t even been 2 days. Trillfendi (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Trillfendi, your sense of indignation about the existence of conspiracy theories so soon, helped by Trump jumping right in the thick of it to encourage it, is justified, but that reality has ZERO bearing on the creation of articles here. Do multiple RS discuss the matter? Yes, and that creates enough notability that we have no choice but to deal with it, including writing an article. That articles like this sometimes get incoporated into the main article is another matter. I suspect that doing that would create a due weight problem here, so this is a legitimate WP:SPINOFF sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Trillfendi makes a good point. We have a "conspiracy theory" before any of the official investigations are complete. That's absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it's absurd, but that speaks to why the article is important.--Nowa (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Check out the Template:Conspiracy_theories - this one definitely belongs. It will surely be improved as more is known. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a useful article, especially as details emerge. If there is room on Wikipedia for articles like this one , then there is room for the article at hand. Don't be in a rush to delete. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are still official investigations ongoing, so there isn't really the basis for a conspiracy theory yet. All we have is off-the-cuff reactions from various people. Any opinion might change when more evidence comes in. It's completely premature to have an article about it. The fingerpointing in all directions also confirms there is no considered theory about the death, and there is no theory how he was murdered. I think if the death becomes a major ongoing issue, we should have a neutral article about the death, not this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We actually have a great deal more than just "off-the-cuff" reactions. We know he was on suicide watch after being found in his cell with injuries several weeks ago. We also have people close to him that have said he had been attacked and feared for his safety. There are also reports that say guards didn't make their rounds properly to check on him, that video cameras malfunctioned, that he was prematurely taken off suicide watch, and that successfully hanging oneself in a prison cell like the one he was in would have been exceedingly difficult. We also have the President of the United States, Attorney General, and multiple congressmen from both parties that have signaled their skepticism that it was a suicide. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all fine facts, assertions, assumptions and doubts upon which a theory could be built, in theory. But have any taken shape yet? Article currently suggests no. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. But the fact that he was on suicide watch, and was taken off, actually supports the contention he committed suicide. Do we have any evidence that supports an assassination?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but this article is about conspiracy theories, not about whether or not a particular explanation of his cause of death makes sense.--Nowa (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And so far there is no theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to "Death of Jeffrey Epstein", and include both the circumstances of his death and the conspiracy theories. We have many articles on the particular death circumstances of people when these circumstances are notable. In the case of Epstein, there is no doubt that this is the case. --mrincodi
  • That's not a bad idea, but I would suggest that be handled over at WP:REQUESTED MOVES after this AfD has concluded. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of two separate articles; one for conspiracy theories, one for reported suicide. MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would merely implement even more forking. If there were an article on Epstein's death, which is not unreasonable, it could reasonably include a few lines on conspiracy theories, but to give them excessive space would lend the undue impression that even the most outlandish of these are serious possibilities. bd2412 T 03:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • bd2412 That doesn't make any logical sense. Under that reasoning, nearly all articles regarding conspiracies should be deleted. These aren't fringe theories by conspiracy nuts either. Nearly all of these theories have some degree of support by Senators, Presidents, and respected journalists.HAL333 03:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles that we do have on conspiracies have serious literature that has developed around them. This one has flash-in-the-pan news going off of social media. Obviously a Death of Jeffrey Epstein article could cover them in somewhat greater detail than the main Epstein article, but there is no need to rehash all rumored connections between either the Clintons or the Trumps and Epstein, nor to cite every talking head or minor public official who tweets an opinion. bd2412 T 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • bd2412 Usually when things have happened a day ago, there isn't serious literature on it. All new articles based on current events can't cite literature and thus rely on news sources. By your reasoning, Wikipedia articles can't exist until books have been written on the topic. The death happened a day ago, as time passes, stronger sources (and eventually books) will become available for use.HAL333 04:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have a policy exactly addressed to this situation: WP:NOTNEWS. bd2412 T 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, that does not address the situation whatsoever. Nowhere in WP:NOTNEWS does it say that literature is required for conspiracy articles, which is this "exact situation." Let us further discuss this in the talk page. Thanks HAL333 04:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think this indicates we should have a "Death" article before we have a "Conspiracy theories" article. There isn't yet enough information to have a genuine "conspiracy theory" about the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Clearly notable enough for an independent article. MarvellingLiked (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage of conspiracy theories isn't unusual and this is a case that has a lot of them, with suitable references to go with them. Spengouli (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly relevant in reinforcing the zealous, hypocritical partisanship of contemporary American politics. Tajiki0013 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No apparent theories about conspiracy, just implications of contract killings. Could still be a political conspiracy, I suppose. But not civil or criminal. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable subject, due to the large amount of coverage. Objections about the article's title ("No apparent theories about conspiracy") are not grounds for deleting the article. The article could be renamed if that were really necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mind a new title, only figured the content (or even just the prime cuts) could about as easily be transferred to a whole new article. One that didn't begin by missing the point of its own existence. Salvaging things is great in the non-renewable world, but burning it all and starting fresh is advisable when feasible, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename might be better under the title Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Benjiphillips (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/rename, especially given the length of the Jeffrey Epstein article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/rename as Merge to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Conspiracy angle is well-reported, but starting with this topic is putting the cart before the horse. His death and the conspiracies that followed are becoming too significant a topic to be covered in the main article alone and should be forked per WP:SPINOFF. StonyBrook (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The "Death of" article should be ample to house the conspiracies for now. If a WEIGHT problem ensues at a later time due to an expansion of that topic it can be spunoff at that time. And there isn't enough content on the death alone to keep that one as a standalone article without the conspiracies included. StonyBrook (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Rename, in light of the public interest relevance of this topic. Whether or not we agree with the conspiracy theories should not be used to argue for or against this page; rather, we should look at it from the simple fact that this topic is most definitely notable enough for a page. However, I would myself prefer to see this page renamed (as said by a few others) to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. The circumstances of his death, whether suicide or not, and whether orchestrated by another party or not, are certainly of notable interest and might be better described by an overall page regarding the death rather than simply the conspiracies. If I am not mistaken, it's usually best to create a page about the death of someone before a page about conspiracies regarding that death. NomadicNom (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This concerns a highly publicized event that is a nigh universal subject of conspiracy theories. Elvis, Hitler and Walt Disney have nothing on this one. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At least some of these theories are notable - mainly because the promoter is the President. Do not rename. Just "Death" is a different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename Death of Jeffrey Epstein, just like we have Death of Michael Jackson and others. Lots of prominent deaths spark conspiracy theories, this one should not be treated differently. Trim the recentist opinion deluge… — JFG ^talk 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amazing thing is that with him being dead less than 72 hours we have comments on his death that pre-date that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extensive media coverage and RS shows notability. Compare to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. Wqwt (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which was written 2 years after Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. StonyBrook (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This page is precisely what makes Wikipedia such a powerful tool. As an epiphenomenon, (which the abounding theories about his death certainly is) these conspiracy theories are no less real than the phenomenon of his death. Speculation, theories, points-of-discussion, etc. can rise to the level of distinct "topics" just as much as singular, touchable events. Having a page about these conspiracy theories is obviously not the same as giving them an imprimatur of "fact." And they are a secondary phenomenon, and shouldn't necessarily share space with Epstein's bio page--at least not yet. That said, I haven't studied Wikipedia's guidelines. CitationPursuer (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep/ No rename Important material for people that want a summary. Be very careful about BLP, however.Nowa (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep = POTUS has pushed, and will almost certainly continue to push, this nonsense. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other conspiracy theory articles exist, such as 9/11 ones. If we degree this one, do we go about deleting the others like it too? —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This shouldn’t even have to be called out but "We should keep it because the president is helping to spread conspiracy theories about his friend on the bird app" is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in months (if you see what goes on around here daily, you know that’s saying something). This is the same person who also spreads lies about his own father’s birth, claimed Ted Cruz’s father killed Kennedy, and that "climate change is a Chinese hoax". That doesn’t give credence to it. This is asinine. What happened to standards? Policy? Reliable sources are negating this. Trillfendi (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't about "credence", but notability. Absurdity often contributes to notability, and when someone as notable (infamous) as Trump chimes in, that unfortunately ups the notability of the most absurd things. He scrapes the bottom of the barrel and places things that should be ignored and hidden into the limelight. It's sad, and it's our job to document it. Then there are many others, and many RS which discuss this, so we're easily over the threshold that requires us to cover it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ya can’t convince me that these conspiracy theories became “notable” merely 13 hours after his death was announced. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily each one, but the subject of conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Epstein, that subject is notable. Notability isn't always dependent on long periods of time. Sometimes it happens fairly fast, depending on the RS, and it is RS, not our ideas of what is reasonable, that are the guideline at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to point out that the (I agree asinine) things that Trump tweeted that Trillfendi mentioned were all made while he was a candidate. Now he is President of the United States and his tweets are official White House statements/^[1] HAL333 19:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The president has lied on record almost 11,000 times as president.... Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every president has lied due to certain things being confidential, but yes, Trump has lied for other reasons. I doubt the 11,000 figure is correct though, as there are several reports of some of his statements being misinterpreted as lies by the mainstream media and other sources. However, blaming Bill Clinton for a pedophile's suicide is likely a falsehood. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it is just a Trump retweet.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/rename maybe Notable enough plus like others said, there are many articles about other notable conspiracies.Antonio Numero 47 Martin (wish me a happy birthday here maybe?) 19:53, 12 August, 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Strong keep for the time being; article is long enough to merit its own page instead of a section on that of Epstein. Potentially revisit this decision in a few months with the benefit of more hindsight and perspective. Porphyro (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Notable death, plus these conspiracies have made several rounds around the Internet. I also believe keeping this article may help prevent said conspiracy theories for being taken as truth. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell the only notable political figure who has directly weighed in is Trump. The low level person mentioned as "maybe" inplicating Hillary, has a very long minor title, and it is less clear what she was saying. The "cable news commentator" mentioned I believe lacks an article. I guess Giuliani says he is not convinced this was a suicide, but that is not quite the same as a conspitracy theory. The fact that DeSantis who order the investigation before Epstain died was said to have done so in reaction to his death shows that failure of NPOV is leading to failure of accuracy to try to make more things fit into this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - meets notability guidelines, many high-profile figures on both sides of the political spectrum are involved.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with JFG and StonyBrook. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - dozens of reliable sources, obviously meets the general notability guidelines. I can't think of any good reason why the readers shouldn't have access to information about a subject that many readers are obviously looking for, and - more importantly - that we have reputable, sourced material describing in detail. Obviously the conspiracy theories are exactly that, but that's exactly how the article refers to them.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Epstein is hardly even cold. It is too soon to justify an article on conspiracy theories around his death. If we get worthwhile continuing coverage it might be worth creating one, but right now this is too much reporting of twitter posts on off hand comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with the actual investigation into the apparent suicide not even complete, the autopsy is not complete for example, so I am not sure we even can say this was clearly not a death due to natural causes yet, conspracy theories just do not make sense at this point. Not that a third of the article is about people who spouted conspiracy theories about what caused Epstein to die before he did. I would also point out that there are not "two sides" to this story. There are lots of sides to this story. Don't forget those of us who were always Never Trmup, Never Hillary. We would be inclined to believe that Donald and Bill jointly agreed to knock off Jeffrey before we delieved that one person knocked him off. Also note that there are theories saying it was British interests that knocked him off. I also am thinking a search of wherever Israelis do their twittering would bring up theories that Shimon Peres was involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does nobody ever suspect Toronto or Ottawa in New York shenanigans? Could literally hit the state with a rock from Southern Ontario, without even throwing it sometimes. Wake up, eh! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Barr pushes through an indepth investigation that will not build towards conspiracy theories but kill the winds behind them. I think we should have a balanced article on the death, not an article on conspracy theories. Especially when none of these accusations in any way seem to identify who would have been the real killer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think that people who believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein's death will believe the conclusions of the FBI's investigation? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to say yes if the results are well publicized. After Arquette, Michael Moore and Takei weighed in I have come to the conclusion that fringe nuts are going to push this incident to advance their own agendas no matter what the DOJ, the FBI, the NYPD and anyone else who investigates concludes. Still a flippant tweet by a nut like Moore is not a fully developed conspiracy theory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article indulges in using twitter as sourcing, which is very problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's very problematic. Joe Scarborough has said he was only being "glib" when he made his comment. Trump only retweeted the Clinton conspiracy theory tweet. His spokespeople have said that he wasn't endorsing it. Which notable person actually believes these conspiracy theories?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I guess either the article was not clear enough or I didn't read close enough. Retweeting and starting a tweet are two different things, and Trump doing the former is a lot less significant than the latter. Some people retweet to mock others not endorse them. Off hand remarks need to not be given more coverage then they deserve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the other hand since #Clintonbodycount trended after Epstein's suicide attempt which closely connected with reveals of the Clinton/Epstein connection, and the huge document dump the day Epstein died, I am not sure that conspiracy theories with Epstein are limited to his death. I think Acosta once said something about how he thought Epstein had "inteligence" connections. There are lots of conspiracy theories about Epstein, including him maybe getting his teaching job from attorney Barr's father that do not directly relate to his death. I have been trying to understand Epstein since Acosta resigned, and have come to realize that far too little is known to understand him. There is a whole set of theories that say he made his money in connection with a 1990s ponzi scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Friendly reminder The short form of "conspiracy theory" is "theory", not "conspiracy". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nice try, Clintons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8AE0:6400:483C:A865:996D:15F (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8AE0:6400:483C:A865:996D:15F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Weak keep The article has some merit outside of the biography, as others others have pointed out, and I am in agreement that the title of the article needs to be addressed. This isn't really a conspiracy that he died, it's more to acquire the facts about his death. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein's death are widely circulated in media outlets and on the Internet, and thus said phenomenon merits documentation per the cited sources, just like the plethora of conspiracy theories surrounding the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Scott Shelby (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC) strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The conspiracy theories are so widely circulated that they are notable, although I would propose either merging it into the article Death of Jeffrey Epstein or merging that article into this one.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for fringe conspiracy theories, whether they are published in reputable sources or not. Most of the theories listed are things that people made up afterwards based on pure speculation. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: This is not what WP:FRINGE says. Should make them seem more notable than they are, but they can still be notable. - Scarpy (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter&anthro, you've been here long enough to know better. Have you really forgotten why we are here and the job Jimbo gave us? Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"^[2][3] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage. Human knowledge includes far more than facts. It includes a whole lot of crap like pseudoscience, lies, scams, and conspiracy theories. If they are notable, we must document them or we have failed at our mission. Fortunately, our method of documentation also serves a valuable purpose, because we also provide the truth of the matter, IOW we also end up debunking the nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: Completely disagree, some of these conspiracy theories are very notable. Specifically, the Clinton connection is being pushed by Donald Trump.Kokpep (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't read it because I have already exhausted my NYT use for the month, but here [12] is a New York Times editorial on Epstein and conspiracy theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: If you read it with AMP, the cookies can’t track you. Trillfendi (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: You can hit the "reader" icon in your browser and it will bypass all ads as well as your limit. petrarchan47คุก 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, keep Death of Jeffrey Epstein which is also in the process of an AfD. - Scarpy (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jeffrey Epstein. The material is notable but too sparse as yet to require a stand-alone article. If the Epstein article gets too long and there is too much sourced conspiracy material, it could be split out in the future. Edison (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that sub-discussions regarding whether or not to include information about the conspiracies in the Death of Jeffrey Epstein article might be best suited for a separate discussion from this one, perhaps as a standalone merge/rename discussion following the closure of this discussion (It looks increasingly unlikely that a consensus for deletion will emerge any time soon, given how far the keep:delete ratio is from being 50-50, much less leaning in favor of deletion). I think a consensus for Merging/Renaming very well might exist, but many of the !votes don't mention any thoughts on whether or not to pursue this option (as that is not what was being proposed) so it would be much harder to find a clear consensus for it in this thread.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Wizard makes a good point. A non-standard occurrence happened here whereas an appropriate article that can host the conspiracy content (for now), Death of Jeffrey Epstein, was created in the middle of this AfD, prompting me to adjust my vote from Keep to Merge. The "Death of" article was also nominated for deletion, so I voted Keep there for consistency. I don't know what the mechanism would be to re-poll this question under the new reality, but it should be done if possible. StonyBrook (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t based on a popular vote, it’s supposed to be a discussion where ideas are weighed. Trillfendi (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per other notable conspiracy theory articles that exist. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Devalues Wikipedia. Pure speculation. Embarrassing stuff. Don't drag us down. Merge if you have to. JMK (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively, why do we have so much detail:)) to Death of Jeffrey Epstein, no need to have both articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein and into main article. Swil999 (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article continues to grow day after day. By merging you would risk mixing up the conspiracies with the facts. The merged article would have to be overly condensed. 2600:1700:B9D0:1990:749A:55AC:F2AC:A12D (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has stabilized and hovered around 40,000 since a 10-megabyte blast on the afternoon of the twelfth. Still no theories, though. Foster might be close. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All we have are a few tweets, which could be summarised in a couple of sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Benjamin (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. There's definitely significant coverage of conspiracy theories surrounding his death, but those should be covered in the main Death of Jeffrey Epstein article instead of having what is essentially a WP:POVFORK. – Anne drew 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein as per comment reply Keep: I think it's clearly notable and not violative of WP:FRINGE, but I don't think it should be merged into Death of Jeffrey Epstein because that might imply that these conspiracy theories have credibility. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much of a credibility problem as long as they are kept separate from the general content under a separate heading. On the contrary, the bigger credibility problem is having an entire article of half-baked conspiracy theories so early in the process. If and when these become more defined in the future is when the conspiracy article should be written. StonyBrook (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. I changed my vote to Merge based on your comment. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's worth keeping these views around, at least until more news emerges, to demonstrate the social effect that this event has had. It also maintain's Wikipedia's neutrality by acknowledging differing explanations of events in a context where we don't know how much more information we will get. (This was poor argument on my part.) This page also needs to exist due to the sheer notability of it. If these theories were believed by a very small amount of the population paying attention, then this article would certainly have very little merit to exist. However, with as much attention and reckoning that these conspiracy theories have been receiving, they have become notable. The Amazing Matt (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comnent Somewhere I saw some gibberish about an Epstein body double. I don't think that is a notable theory but there will always be some doubters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Death of Jeffrey Epstein. While citations support mentioning this nonsense, I do not believe it needs it own article with such UNDUE length. The content can be preserved but discussed below the facts of the entire situation. Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as both are forks of tightly connected topics. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tons of coverage in reliable sources and this wouldn't be the first death conspiracy theory page. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Unnecessary to have a separate article for the conspiracy theories, at least at this time, especially given how recent the event is. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein: I've been watching this for the past few days. I'm not sure we have enough proper secondary sourcing, separated both by person and by time, to allow this page to stand on its own, at least for the foreseeable future (a few months, at least). As such, it would be prudent, for now, to merge this; we can always break it apart later if needed. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The conspiracy theories have been substantially covered and are adequately notable for their own article. To merge into the death article (let alone the Epstein article) would make either far too unwieldy. Davey2116 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one early complaint about this article may play out now. One issue some of us had is how do you have a conspiracy theory theory discounting the official version of events when there is not yet an official version of events to present as a conspiracy. With the Washington Post running an argument with comments suggesting the autopsy may give results more easily explained by strangulation than self hanging and without an official statement on cause of death and multiple in place investigations, there is not yet an official version of events to be thought a conspiracy and so it is hard to argue a conspiracy theory as opposed to flippant cross accusations can even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think this is a real possibility. How do we determine what is a "conspiracy theory" in the context that there is no official version of events?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a lot of the "Keep" arguments are invalid. Just because reliable sources have mentioned the claims doesn't mean that we have to have an article. Currently the "theories" are based on a few high profile tweets. Joe Scarborough's tweet was apparently made flippantly, and Trump only retweeted. We don't automatically need to have an article about things like this. There needs to be greater justification. Secondly, purely because we have articles about some conspiracy theories does not mean we need articles about every conspiracy theory. Again, there has to be greater justification.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: The Death of Jeffrey Epstein article was created at 15:07 12 August. !Votes before My very best wishes' comment were cast before that article existed. – Anne drew 13:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My vote would still be "keep". This is a bad practice to create another page on potentially overlapped subject during active AfD. Perhaps merging should be discussed, but this needs to be done on articles talk pages after closing both AfD as keep. However, I would oppose to merging because both pages are already large and I think that facts and conspiracy theories should be kept separately. Yes, they certainly are conspiracy theories, even if he was actually murdered or intentionally let to die in the prison. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein: a) They're not really conspiracy theories until we get an official narrative (as has been noted by User:Johnpacklambert) so speculation prior to such narrative shouldn't be under that heading, b) at the moment it's looking a lot like a POV fork, c) the explosion of speculation is itself notable, enough so that the Death article has its own (redundant) section on the matter. His death and the hubbub surrounding it are notable enough to have their own article, though, so I don't support lumping all of it back into the main article on Jeffrey Epstein himself. Magic9mushroom (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein and wait for the complete "official narrative" to exist as a reference point, per above. ―cobaltcigs 15:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Keep. ―cobaltcigs 00:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Until the cause and circumstances of death are established, we can't draw a firm line between what actually happened vs conspiracism. Note we know who killed JFK and how Diana, Princess of Wales, died and any dissenting opinions can be labelled conspiracism. But we don't know who Jack the Ripper was, so the article on him lists various theories and does not have a separate article for ones we consider to be conspiracy theories. I would point out that at the moment, homicide is a reasonable possibility in Epstein's case, but would be a conspiracy theory if the medical examiner determined he committed suicide and mainstream sources accepted the finding. TFD (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein, noting that early votes to keep were made either before Death of Jeffrey Epstein had been created, or before editors here were aware of it and knew merging was an option. -Darouet (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might makes sense to ping those who weighed in before the "death" article was created; I would have appreciated such a ping, I did change my vote because of the new article. petrarchan47คุก 21:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging, per the suggestion above by Petrarchan47: BD2412 Philip Cross InedibleHulk HAL333 John Pack Lambert MelanieN Rreagan007 M.W.B.A.B. Trillfendi Nowa Bangabandhu Count Robert of Paris Jack Upland [User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] InedibleHulk mrincodi MarvellingLiked Spengouli Tajiki0013 Freeknowledgecreator Benjiphillips Hurricanehink StonyBrook NomadicNom DarthBotto My very best wishes JFG Wqwt CitationPursuer Bearian LRG5784 userpage Antonio Numero 47 Martin Porphyro userpage userpage Crumpled Fire MZMcBride Vanilla Wizard Govvy Scott Shelby Ponyo SpidersMilk Inter&anthro Scarpy Kokpep Edison Nice4What JMK Coolabahapple Swil999 Benjamin Anne drew Andrew and Drew Cosmic Sans The Amazing Matt Reywas92 Meatsgains Wallyfromdilbert Javert2113 Davey2116 Magic9mushroom TFD Darouet -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want both deleted, so Merge would mean the same to me, but count me in. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. This is mess because someone created page Death of Jeffrey Epstein during this AfD. Now, I believe the proper course of action is to close both AfDs as "keep" or "no consensus". Then anyone can initiate new discussion to merge these pages, but it should be done separately and after closing the AfDs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Death of Jeffrey Epstein. this article is an unnecessary fork and is subject to the usual tabloiding media does when something suspicious occurs; even the potus is getting in on it. this level of detail less than a week after the event isn't needed.  Nixinova  T  C  08:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I consider this article a POV pushing that seeks to marginalize those who do not accept the statements from the prison officials at face value, an attack made harder when we consider it is now known the gaurds falsified the logs and were asleep on the job. Here we have USA today quoting Cyril Wecht [[13]] on how the bone breaks in Epstein's neck are not consistent with any hanging he could have done in the cell. Wecht is someone who has at least some expertise in this manner. Considered the medical examiner who did the autopsy made rulings in Eric Garner's death that are questioned, this is not going to be an easy case to move out of dispute. However the medical examiner has not announced the findings of the autopsy at all. At this point not accepting that this was a suicide is hardly to be cast off as a "conspiracy theory". The jury is still out and with the Wall Street Journal running an editorial that basically argued we have a failure of good journalism and no quality reporters covering this story, it is way to soon to seperate it our into "facts" and "conspiracy".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Death of Jeffrey Epstein. --Nowa (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Epstein's body isn't even cold and we're already convinced these conspiracy theories will have lasting historical importance? WanderingWanda (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - Well, it seems rather relevant now, so we should wait and see if it dies out, and if it does, then maybe we can delete it. But if not, and I believe it won't, then we keep it. Calicodragon (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (pinged) Merge, consistent with my prior !vote to "Keep but rename", before the Death article had been created. Good luck with the histmerge… — JFG ^talk 21:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First of all WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM The speculation and the coverage about speculation is rampant in the sources provided. Next, this article seems to veer way off topic (WP:OFFTOPIC) by repeating what other notable persons did or did not do before Epstein's death. These actions have no and has relationship to conspiracies surrounding Epstein's death. Nor is coverage of these persons related to Epstein's death. These are WP:BLP violations - using this platform to smear notable persons based on speculative information. There are only a few theories related to Epstein's death at present, and nothing conclusive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge changing my Ivote per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM and in agreement with other participants. It seems only the last section is worth merging because the coverage of other people in this article is unrelated to this topic. And, that coverage is based on speculation. Hopefully, by the time this AfD is over, we will have more answers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 18 August 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. czar 18:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wake[edit]

Bob Wake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Provided sources are all written by the subject with the exception of a mere mention of having won an award of unclear notability [14] (which also isn't independent coverage if it's published by the organization giving the award). Searching online, I was able to find some brief coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal, which has about one paragraph that is actually pertinent biographical information about Wake in the context of interviewing him about his interactions with another author.

Listed awards do not appear to rise to the level WP:ANYBIO (nor are they backed by reliable sources for the most part). Originally nominated for PROD, dePROD by the initial editor without making any improvements or even leaving an edit summary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with Rosguill, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Meeanaya (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I looked at the blurbs provided for Wake's Caffeine and Other Stories (1997).[15] One is by Midwest Book Review, a blurb factory which doesn't help establish notability. Two are sourced simply as from certain people who authored one book and edited another - they are presumably not from published reviews. One is from an e-zine called Erupture, a self-published source. Another is from Eclectica, which is an edited publication and an acceptable source. So that's one point scored out of the required two to meet WP:NBOOK. Finally there's a quote from "Tracy Walczak, BookLovers" which I am guessing is a defunct online publication. I haven't been able to find out whether it was an edited publication or not so I can't confirm a point here. I searched for other coverage of the author but found only a couple of short mentions in local publications. So, yeah, delete unless more sources show up. Haukur (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete Adding another source here: Bob Wake is blurbed in David Foster Wallace's short story collection Oblivion according to The Howling Fantods [16] Bob Wake is a regional author from Wisconsin, similar to an August Derleth. More reading on regionalism in American literature here: [17] But being a regionalist does NOT equate to lack of notability; it is an important literary movement and the authors rise to level of recognition on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustmcwake (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Being big in Wisconsin would indeed be enough for notability. But you need a lot more sources to make the case. Book reviews, newspaper profiles, awards that get third party coverage – that kind of thing. Haukur (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And the page lists a number of notable regional Wisconsin awards won by the author in question, all of which are chosen by fellow Wisconsinite authors. In terms of third party coverage, here's an article about him from Madison.com, a news site consisting of three of the largest newspapers in the state. [18]contribs

It seems that you're confused about what notability means on Wikipedia. It's not a synonym for "important" or "famous", but is rather a measurement of the amount of coverage in available reliable sources. In order to demonstrate that the listed awards are notable, you will need to provide sufficient coverage of them in independent, reliable sources, to establish that they themselves meet notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia (and even then, it's not a guaranteed indicator of notability, per WP:ANYBIO). And unless there's been some sort of mistake with the url, that "article" you've linked is a picture and one sentence, which is nowhere near the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, and I believe this author meets that threshold. Earlier entries on this discussion page have listed coverage deemed notable, and I can continue listing some sources. Here is Urban Milwaukee, an alternative paper with significant viewership, picking up the press release announcing one of the author's awards [19] Here's another link to an article in the Wisconsin State Journal by [20] Doug Moe discussing contributions of the author in question to the Wisconsin literary community. 'Augustmcwake' ^talk

That Wisconsin State Journal link moves the needle a little bit for me. Can you come up with more coverage like that? Or any reviews of books or short stories in edited publications? Haukur (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing anyone's right to evaluate the coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal for themselves, but just pointing out that this is the same source that I brought up in my nomination statement and described as having "brief coverage". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Hah, thanks for pointing that out. It's laborious for me to access these pages since they give me a 451 error unless I go through a US proxy. I probably didn't bother originally so this looked new to me now.

I'd say we so far have two cases of non-trivial independent coverage in acceptable sources. This article and the Eclectica review. I'd like to see at least four cases to bring this to a keep. Haukur (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would posit it's subjective to say the coverage in the WSJ article is "brief." I would argue the entire article is about a significant project the author in question is doing for Wisconsin literary culture. I also feel that 4 sources versus 2 or 3 is equally subjective. However, here's another one - Bob Wake's Caffeine book of short stories is mentioned in Nancy Pearl's (very well known librarian and bestselling author)book "Now Read This II: A Guide to Mainstream Fiction 1990-2001." Bob Wake's book is listed as contributing to an emerging new genre called the near-novel. Here is the entire quote:

"A New Genre Is Born: In terms of the type of fiction being published, it's interesting to note that another fiction genre began to flourish in recent years. 'Near novels,' or books made up of a series of interconnected short stories in which characters either overlap or similar themes are explored, became ubiquitous on library and bookstore shelves. of course, the differences between a 'near novel' and a novel are fluid. One way to tell a novel from a 'near novel' is that in the latter, each chapter could stand alone (and frequently has been published as a short story). The chapters of a conventional novel, on the other hand, are much more interdependent on one another. Yet, at the same time, reading the stories or chapters in a 'near novel' as a unit significantly deepens their impact. Some examples of these 'near novels' include... Bob Wake's 'Caffeine and Other Stories.'"

Here is the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=1ap9eRLpLPUC&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=bob+wake+caffeine&source=bl&ots=URsrNBdZ1M&sig=ACfU3U2ibvFgCztYsqtpgpz6RNjbLHmPxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKy9CXzYDkAhXhT98KHfzvCtUQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=bob%20wake%20caffeine&f=false 'Augustmcwake'

I agree that the WSJ article is perfectly decent coverage. As for the Now Read This mention, I don't feel appearing in a list of eight books, with no comment on that book in particular, quite cuts it as non-trivial coverage. It's not nothing, but it's not much.

I arrive at the number 'four' this way: By WP:NBOOK you need two pieces of coverage for a book article. And if you have two notable books, there's a decent case for an author article. Two plus two is four. By being a little bit generous we can apply this even if the pieces don't line up as two pieces on one book and two pieces on another. This personal baseline is probably on the inclusionist side of things over here. And I'm not insisting on New York Times reviews either – an edited web publication is fine, a local newspaper is fine, a couple of paragraphs of analysis in a book or academic article would be fine. Even a defunct web publication would do as long as archive.org could show it to us. And coverage which is not available online is fine too, as long as we can confirm its existence. Haukur (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliably-published and in-depth reviews each of two authored books (not edited volumes or books from his small press) would also be a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR for me. However in this case, all I found (see links below) was two reviews of one book, both dubiously reliable rather than in established and notable publications, and none of the other. Are there more that I'm missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're in agreement here on deleting – the above paragraph is me speaking hypothetically and generally. I guess the thread is so long now that this has become confusing. Haukur (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Founding a small press is not itself inherently notable, nor is authoring and self-publishing one book (Summer of the Cinetherapist) and one short story collection (Caffeine and Other Stories). I can find a couple of dubiously-reliable reviews of the story collection [21] [22] but none for the other book and it's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. Nor do I see any evidence of any other kind of notability. The Wisconsin State Journal piece does mention Wake, but it's only one source (not enough for GNG) and too anecdotal to be useful for much. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 13 August 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 Exeed TX. Anything that is worth merging can be retrieved from the article history. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chery Exeed TX[edit]

Chery Exeed TX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is another article already covering the subject, Exeed TX; (reason 5, content forking). Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment was going to vote SD criteria A10, however the Chery Exeed TX article has been here longer. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For duplicate articles you perform an article merger. At no point in that process does an administrator use the deletion tool. Nor is AFD involved. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I think the merge should be from "Exceed TX" to "Chery Exceed TX" because the longer title is more appropriately specific. It doesn't matter which has been here longer. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging would be completely useless in this case, since the articles don't really have that much content. It's even obvious that merging or deleting would result in the exact same article, and in both instances, at least one article would not require any changes. That is, because the articles are literally redundant. We could even delete both articles: Creating this article from scratch would take less than five minutes. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Exeed TX which is slightly more developed. (There's actually nothing interesting to merge from Chery Exeed TX.) In any case, no need for the deletion tool. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 18 August 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) 22:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gennaro Brooks-Church[edit]

Gennaro Brooks-Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cant see any signs of notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform of companies for their Business executives. Not independently notable, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notabel builder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nominator the subject in question does not seem notable. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 07:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non notable builder that fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage Taewangkorea (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. There is not really any coverage about him and the coverage of his work does not seem to rise to the level required of WP:CREATIVE. Jbh ^Talk 19:36, 18 August 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) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Brigden[edit]

John Brigden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It more looks likes a detailed version of a Linkedin profile, I cant see any signs of notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform of companies for their Business executives. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable businessman. This is Wikipedia not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Being the CCO, board secretary, etc., by itself is not notable. He has to have done something. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Non-notable businessman. Barca (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: person had notable positions. Cisco is major company and his position is SVP. However, I find mostly passing mentions of the person. Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 14 August 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. No convincing WP:PAG based argument was presented in favor of retention. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eleuthère I. du Pont[edit]

Eleuthère I. du Pont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cant see any signs of notability, being a son doesn't makes you notable, no major role at the company. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a member of a company board of directors is generally not enough for notability and that is all we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage, and notability not inherited from role or relatives ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - arguably, he was notable as President of Wawa, a large chain of convenience stores. FWIW, a good friend of mine worked for him (as Wawa's architect). Bearian (talk) 17:27, 12 August 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) 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Ward[edit]

Patrick J. Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cant see any signs of notability, why he deserves a page, being a CFO or director of any company does not makes you notable. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage of person independent of role, failing GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - being CFO or a board member, does not covey automatic notability. He seems to be ordinary. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 12 August 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 nominator withdrew their deletion rationale, the only remaining delete opinion has been adequately rebutted. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward D. Breen[edit]

Edward D. Breen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are only two RS, Breen is not independently notable outside of his company, Nothing significant except his executive position, no major awards, no major appointments, lacks sufficient WP:RS to establish his independent notability, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep passes criterion 1 of WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME - Chair of S&P 500 firm. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OxonAlex, dont want to waste anyone's time and will like to withdraw it. @Northamerica1000: Meeanaya (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't personally recommend it: the common outcomes aren't case law, and aren't the strongest arguments in either direction, hence the weak keep. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep - CEO of an old, major firm in America. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to vote either way as my father was a legal executive at Tyco for many years worked with Ed Breen on a regular basis and so growing up hearing his name all the time has undoubtedly warped my opinion of his notability. Still, I do believe the current sources lean towards passing WP:GNG, plus more coverage from USA Today, The Associated Press, CNN, and appears quite often on CNBC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current references could be better (some of the coverage is superficial, some is not from objective sources) but with that and the links posted by GPL93, I think we have enough to pass WP:BIO. It sounds weird to me that we could consider the CEO of a company with a revenue of $86 billion not notable. Pichpich (talk) 21:34, 18 August 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Majure[edit]

Harlan Majure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD declined. Bringing to AfD as the subject of the article is not notable as mayor of a small town, and notable only for his controversial testimony in a court case. WP:BLP1E Applies. Anything related to the trial can be merged into Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being mayor of such a small place does not show notability, and much, much more coverage is needed to show that testimony at a trial makes the person who gave it notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Major of small town non notable, and otherwise known only for one event. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Small or big place doesn't makes a difference for me. He fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as of today. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing's terrible, and small town mayors aren't typically kept unless WP:GNG can be shown for a larger area than their town, which isn't the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The town is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but this article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 15 August 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. Impressive that even one of the sources stated he was non-notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Allen[edit]

J.P. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod was removed. Subject appears to be a minor filmmaker with at most extremely local impact. No claim to notability is made, fails WP:BIO. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it does appear that Allen is a only very local "celebrity". I haven't been able to find coverage of him beyond the San Francisco press, and even that is only 4 or 5 articles in his nearly 20-year career. The closest this article comes to meeting WP:FILMMAKER is a brief mention that Stephanie's Image was nominated for three awards the Milan International Film Festival in 2009. The film did not win at Milan, but apparently won the "Audience Award" at the Washougal International Film Festival. I don't think this adds up to notability. Railfan23 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable filmmaker. We have lots of articles on filmmakers currently sourced only to IMDb. This is a potential area for a lot of either fixing articles on nominating them for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable filmmaker, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:58, 11 August 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Photography[edit]

This Week in Photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NWEB. No reliables sources to prove notability Rogermx (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:WEBCRIT, has no non-trivial, reliable, published sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing anything to prove its notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:29, 12 August 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 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Not currently mentioned in target article. czar 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

49 Minutes of Jazz[edit]

49 Minutes of Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. WP:RPRGM does suggest that a radio show may be notable if it's broadcast on a wide scale, as it was. However, it specifically notes the presence/absence of reliable sources is more key (a clearer statement than on many notability guidelines). I couldn't find anything that met the SigCov/reliable/independent requirements, let alone multiple ones. A redirect seems logical. To anyone else doing their BEFORE checks, be careful as this programme had multiple names and is spectacularly google unfriendly, and has other language mentions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Not independently notable, but seems like it could be covered on main article. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:55, 11 August 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. No substantial support for deletion and only a single comment favoring a merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Foundation of Chameria[edit]

Democratic Foundation of Chameria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Democratic Foundation of Chameria, is an article about an Albanian ghost organization whose the leader enspouced extremist and nationalist political views and questionable claims (the leader illegally stylized/declared himself as President or Prime Minister of a non-existent Republic of Chameria - this rank and this country do not exist) and has expressed politically extremist and irredendist views against the territorial integrity of foreign states, particularly Greece). Furthermore, the leader of this ghost organization was recently found dead in Netherlands. The Dutch Police revealed to the press that he was involved in serious crimes such as money fraud, and the authorities suspect his death to be related to these crimes.

Looking thoroughly in the article Democratic Foundation of Chameria (or short for DFC), one can easily see that there are serious WP:OR issues, and a complete absence of reliable sources to WP:VERIFY the article's subject, which is about that DFC. In fact, the only sources cited in the article about DFC, are all dead and broken, and appear to refer to the foundation's website, which however is inaccessible.

The only reliable (and accessible) sources in the article, are about its leader's death (which should be moved to their own article about the person instead) and the Cham issue (which got already its own article). With simple words: any reliable sources found in the article, are not about the article's subject at all, in a violation of Wikipedia's rules. The presence of reliable sources in the article that are only about other subjects, already covered in other articles, cannot justify keeping this article from being deleted.

The article falls into WP:ADVOCATE, WP:OR and WP:NATIONALIST territory and lacks any WP:VERIFIABILITY and therefore it needs to be deleted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moaz786: Relax. Either the problems mentioned above will have to be addressed, or the article be deleted. Per ARBCOM, use of the Wikipedia project for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. Wikipedia's rules regarding unverified information are quite clear. Articles from the Balkan topic area which are politically sensitive, is required that they meet the Project's minimal standards. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The organization is mentioned by several news sources which elaborate on its ideology, activities and goals. Furthermore, it has participated at UNPO activities. I am adding some content to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: Good. in that case, the article can stay, however any other unsourced content needs to be removed, the article cleaned up and updated. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is entirely based on a couple of regional level newspapers (no wonder not a single non-Albanian or even Albanian speaking media at the national level mentions this organisation), even in those few newspapers there is too much wp:CRYSTALBALL. There is urgent need for additional material to save this one.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua: Agree. I shall note that besides the problems you underlined, there is still content in it which is unsourced and it needs to be removed if no sources are provided. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I added some content sourced to several media outlets (none of them "regional"-- especially Top Channel) and UNPO's official page. I might make new additions if time permits (I doubt that). Anyone interested can find sources online and work with the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge for now changed after subsequent discussion below, merger discussions will resume on appropriate pages after this ends At it's current form at least, the article doesnt strike me as a case of ADVOCATE; discussion of cat fights between Lato and Idrizi are much more in the unfavorable depiction territory (or even BLP inasmuch as we discuss the accusation of accepting *gifts* from Greece). TopChannel and Telegraf arent really "regional". Some stuff like the alleged murder that didnt happen arent notable. I could also see a home for the info on this page on a broader page discussing modern politics surrounding the Cham issue too-- we dont need a bunch of stubs, it might be helpful to unify some of these, generally.--Calthinus (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Yeah, an article named sth like List of Cham organizations formed by merging several articles together would be sth good for the coverage of the Cham issue. However, since the merge would involve at least 4 articles, that should be discussed somewhere other than here. On this article's talk page or even on the talk page of WikiProjectAlbania. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or Cham issue. But agreed, this is not the place.--Calthinus (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Though this is supposed to have been founded in 2006, gbooks, gscholar and the (English) googlenews receive zero hits. The best I've could find in academic literature was this work [[23]]: the name of the organisation is just included in a list of minor irredentist Cham-related organisations.Alexikoua (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment@Alexikoua, Ktrimi991, and Calthinus: I was thinking of merging this article with Albanian nationalism but the idea of a merging it into a list of List of Cham organizations sounds fine too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, after you tried to get the article deleted with irrelevant arguments, you support merging it. Anyhow, I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have already said regarding the difference between an Afd debate and merging articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, are you telling us that by the time my deletion proposal was made (and prior to your intervention and subsequent attribution of sources), that the article wasn't in line with Wikipedia's Deletion Policy regarding articles with no attribution of reliable sources? Please calm down. Your tense response to me, right now, is not constructive, and shows someone close to the topic with grievances. I kindly ask you that you avoid commenting on editors and focuse on the problems pertaining the article. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no tension in my response to you. Another editor said just after you nominated the article for deletion (and before I edited it) that your arguments seem to be in IDONTLIKEIT territory. You firstly wanted this article deleted, then "cleaned up and updated" and now merged with other articles. I am not against merging some of the articles on Cham organizations (probably not this one but 4 or 5 five others) but the place is not here for that discussion. Your tense response to me, right now, is not constructive, and shows someone close to the topic with grievances. I do not want to discuss on editors, and their personal stuff. But since you are accusing me, I remind you of your own words [24]. However, I do not think am going to respond here anymore. I expressed my opinion; continuing with rather off-topic stuff is of no help. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that old comment you cited now, I was repeating to you that: "Lets focuse on the article content. Thank you". Read what you cite. If you can't abide by Wikipedia's rules and relax, then I suggest you take a WP:BREAK. Don't expect further replies from me, I am not interested in anyone's grievances, let alone yours, and I suggest you do the same.

Back to topic: fellow editors, do we agree that the article doesn't have to be deleted anymore and rather be merged? However if we are to start a discussion on merging the article with others, we should at least consider the content in it which isn't the subject of the article, yet it is sourced. The question is about the organization's head. Besides the obvious fact that info about him will have to be trimmed down when the article is merged (but shouldn't be removed), the trimmed down content can go somewhere else. I am not sure how useful idea it is, but I was wondering if the creation of an person article about Festim Lato, the criminal and so-called president of Chameria. He has gained notability in local media, both for his nationalist and criminal activities, which IMO falls under WP:NOTABILITY. What are your thoughts?--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Festim Lato -- possibly but the page would be very reliant on "regional" media -- as long as we're all cool with that, I'd be down for a new page. @SilentResident, Ktrimi991, and Alexikoua: I can support making List of Cham organizations but that means someone has to do work to make a new page rather than only talk about it-- and I have other food on my plate, promises of wikiwork that have not gotten done yet. If someone volunteers I'd support that. Otherwise I'd suggest a simple merger into Cham issue -- if there's no objections I'll start the proposal on that page.--Calthinus (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me @Calthinus:, I know you want to focus on stuff other than the Cham issue/Greeks in Albania etc. A new article on Cham organizations would need a good amount of effort and knowledge. Merely copy-pasting content from other articles is not of value. PDIU, Democratic Foundation of Chameria and "Shoqata Cameria" deserve their own articles. The rest should be, in my view, placed in an article named sth like List of Cham organizations. Merging with Cham issue would not be a good idea, since we are talking about several organizations that currently have their own articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aight I won't start the proposal then. At the very least we should link them in some way, with a navigation box perhaps? They should all be considered in the context of each other, imo.--Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 to clarify -- imo -- electorally or otherwise highly significant and well-covered entities like PDIU should obviously keep their own articles. My main shtick here is that there should be an easy way to navigate between the different pages for Cham organizations. We have the "organizations" tab in the Cham Albanians box, but readers don't see it unless they expand that, and a lot of the info is cultural/historical whereas most readers of this page will only be interested in the current political organizations.--Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I totally understand and agree with you. The Ch. Albs. box contains only some of the Cham organizations that currently have their own articles. I do not have much information on Cham organizations but I can see there are more than 8 Cham organizations that have their own articles. I do not have the time to focus on this matter, so creating a List of Cham prganizations and moving there the content of the articles of Cham organizations other than PDIU, DFC and "Shoqata Cameria" could be the only viable solution. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PDIU is a political party, not organization. There is an obvious difference here; I don't get how PDIU got involved in all this. A list of organizations where political parties are not present in it, is fine and does not go against the project's rules in any way, so I am positive no one could oppose this idea. @Alexikoua: what is your opinion? Sorry for asking but your input on Albania-related article is noteworthy, and your skills with Google and sources are much better than mine. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident The Cham issue and Albanian nationalism are two related but separate things. The latter has a history of over a century before the former was born. Likewise Greater Albania is also separate, because (a) Cham organizations often demand Greek citizenship rather than a change in borders and (b) Albanian irredentism is more often focused solely on Kosovo, Malesia, Ulqini and Polog, not Chameria which would involving absorbing a large new group of Greeks who would somehow have to be magically persuaded to be happy about now being in a much poorer state than Greece (neither of these complications exist so much for the typical "targets" of Albanian irredentism). --Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. The Democratic Foundation of Chameria asked for the dissolution of Greece and the formation of a new Confedetation that has 2 constituent parties in it: Chameria, and an Epirusless Greece. [25]. I am not saying that whatever the nationalists behind this whole "Republic of Chameria" thing are serious or not, but I am just noting that it is not as much different than other forms of Albanian nationalism as you may think. I hope I am wrong and you tell me that this is just a joke or something that doesn't even fall under the concept of Albanian nationalism, but oh well... Whatever is the case here, I am open to your opinions, and I shall remind everyone we will need emphasize on WP:RS and avoid mistakes of the past, where other forms of nationalism in the Balkans, were downplayed and underestimated before Wikipedia finally decides to go ahead and tackle and attribute them properly, as forms of nationalism. (and I am referring to the Macedonian nationalism)--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cham question is one specific issue, Albanian or any other nationalism is an overarching ideology that claims to have an answer to it and other such questions. Different but related. Here is not the venue.--Calthinus (talk) 20:48, 16 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shallon Lester[edit]

Shallon Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of the biography is listed as being known for starring in a reality TV show which aired only 6 episodes. To me, this does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for entertainers. An unregistered user edited the page claiming to be the subject of the biography writing that she is "a popular Internet personality creating viral dating videos on YouTube" and providing her YouTube channel as a reference. Putting aside the WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY concerns, given that the videos on that channel typically get less than 100K views and the channel only has about 130K subscribers, I don't think she is notable as an internet personality (but I don't see a guideline for notability of internet personalities). Banana Republic (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER; the subject has not starred in multiple notable films or television shows, nor does she have a large fan base or significant cult following, and she has not made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to her field. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fan/vanity page by SPA whose sole WP edit was to create this article. Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The editor, Honeymonk, has also made two deleted edits. This article under consideration was created just 5 hours after the account was created. I guess the rules have tightened since the article was created in 2007 because today a user must be registered for a minimum of 4 days and have made 10 edits before being allowed to create articles. Banana Republic (talk) 14:04, 13 August 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. czar 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musicshake[edit]

Musicshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable web-service Collaboratio (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEBCRIT; a single article on the first three pages of the "news" tab of Google does not show multiple non-trivial published works. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:58, 11 August 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) 14:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Prasad (Journalist)[edit]

Naveen Prasad (Journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Young journalist with no indication of notability; references are to things he has written, not about him. ... discospinster _talk 14:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable 17-year-old journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not actually sure notability is asserted, but GNG obviously not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It looks like spam and surely it should be deleted. Non notable person. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 18 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Brandt[edit]

Jan Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep – Seriously, number 39 on FORTUNE's 50 Most Powerful Women and lots of news coverage is not enough for WP:GNG? Nom has a long list of similar AfDs that need careful scrutiny, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and other such lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd put FORTUNE's 50 Most Powerful Women in that category? That's just wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep clearly notable. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find any RS? It more looks likes a detailed version of a Linkedin profile, I cant see any signs of notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform of companies for their Business executives. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The role in the company is the source of her notability, yes. What's wrong with that? Here is a news article with significant independent coverage, for example. And here's one from 4 years earlier. She's famous. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rehashed LinkedIn profile and nobody from AOL paid me to write this for anyone. I don't even know if she knows this page exists. Not everyone making pages for executives is doing it to advertise. I genuinely wanted to know more about the person behind the infamous AOL CD carpet-bombing campaign and decided to make this page to share what I found. It is hard to find online sources from this era about marketing executives without looking through archives which may be why it comes off as a LinkedIn profile. Blueclaw (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lists of most influential x from publication y have become so ubiquitous it is time we stop paying them any heed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just one measure; there are lots of news articles about her. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep multiple independent sources reference Brandt's notability eg "That genius Jan Brandt" and "Jan Brandt is a legend in the world of marketing. She singlehandedly led the famous AOL 'carpet-bombing' campaign that put millions of AOL trial discs and CDs in everything from magazines to popcorn boxes to banks." The AOL freebie campaign she started in the early 1990s is still newsworthy, even when articles about it don't mention Brandt, e.g. Smithsonian and Wired. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing is more than adequate. "Not independently notable outside of her company" is like saying "not notable outside of the thing that makes her notable". XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Multiple independent sources indicate that she is indeed well-known. I started the page because I found her contributions to the early 90s internet era fascinating and I wanted to know more about her career. Surely other people find her story and contributions interesting. Blueclaw (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WP:RSs Thanks HouseOfChange. Wm335td (talk) 18:36, 14 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McClellan[edit]

Steve McClellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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