< 10 October	12 October >

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. Redirect at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterfly Effect (Diana Yukawa album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable album, no claim to notability apart from the fact that it exists. No apparent significant charting anywhere, very few reviews. There are links to buy it on both Billboard Japan ([1]) and Oricon ([2], [3]), but neither gives any indication of it charting. (In contrast, this entry for an another (unrelated) CD of the same name shows that that CD went to #13 on the Oricon chart.)

I had PRODded this, but another editor (quite rightly, per WT:Proposed_deletion) de-PRODded, pointing out that the prior AFD made it ineligible for PROD, even though the prior AFD was on COPYVIO grounds rather than notability grounds. TJRC (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find evidence to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable album. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diana Yukawa, agree that it is not notable but no reason not to have as a redirect. --J04n(talk page) 17:24, 18 October 2017 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bietz[edit]

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

Original created as a draft which was reviewed and rejected so it was then cut and pasted into main space thus avoiding review. The lack of review doesn't hide the wholesale lack of notability. The sources are all promotional and fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid is promo. Agricola44 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. Non-notable author, two awards, no coverage. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here in the article to constitute notability and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG clearly. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2017 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Weissler[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Some parts are hoax or vandalism although it is difficult to determine where truth lies. Not a single independent reference. Fails WP:GNG It presumably survived the BLP Prod on the basis of the IMDB ref - which also looks suspect. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent references, seems to be a hoax. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above, and I'm finding no evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. gongshow talk 09:01, 17 October 2017 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Shahan[edit]

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

I believe that the reason given in the removed PROD is valid, as written by Bri: "This article is a paid advertisement for the author and fails both WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NAUTHOR. Book flaps, publisher's website, author interview, etc. do not establish notability." 331dot (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvs, same reasons as in my PROD. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional, as are all the sources. No merit. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this one is on the verge of qualifying for A7 speedy deletion. Alexius08 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid is promo. Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks proper RS, fails notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epicurean Masters of the World[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this publicity stunt. A7 declined on basis of "associated with notable people" I consider that this is not a reasonable basis to decline A7, as "associated with notable people" is not a rational claim to encyclopedic importance. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete: per A7. I originally placed the speedy tag which was declined. Courtesy ping to declining admin: Ritchie333. DrStrauss talk 20:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an A7 as there are sources - "a rational claim to encyclopedic importance" isn't really the issue, as A7 means "not even a redirect, thanks". As for whether it's a "keep", not sure yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: sourcing shouldn't even come into the equation with A7s IMO. WP:CCS (which WP:A7 cites]]) says While the inclusion of reliable secondary sources may itself be an indication of significance, not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria. DrStrauss talk 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes. That means if an article has no sources, it might still not be an A7. This article has sources, such as the Time Magazine one I just added. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources from The Guardian [4] and BBC [5] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS in Time, Guardian, Forbes, Yahoo news..Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linky? DrStrauss talk 16:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. Significant RS coverage not found. There are some sources, such as "The $300,000 Dinner" in Time, but it borders on WP:SPIP. Note the promo language and future tense; that's clearly PR driven:

"The 10-course feast is being touted as a "once-in-a-lifetime inspirational dinner." On April 5, Bangkok's five-star Lebua hotel will treat 50 favored guests to a repast prepared by a glittering array of Michelin-starred chefs."

Does not belong in an encyclopedia, IMO, for lack of lasting significance of these events. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When it was created in February 2007, the article stated "a series of gourmet dinners ...", but in fact there were only ever two events, in Nov 2006 and Feb 2007. At that time it was discussed in a number of reliable independent sources and might be said to pass WP:GNG. However interest did not last and the sources date to February 2007. I think the article fails WP:SUSTAINED and has no place in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cwmhiraeth. Doesn't appear to have generated any lasting effects or continued coverage to satisfy WP:Notability (events). That said, also noting that Ritchie333's declining of the CSD A7 was absolutely correct. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primi (gang)[edit]

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

Uncited since 2009. And I can find no sourcing to show this gang even exists. Tried several variations of the name plus gang plus Phoenix. Or Arizona. Or Laveen. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS for this gang. Hard to establish if it exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Not a skerrick of evidence found either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, failing V and GNG. I wasn't able to find much beyond Wiki clones.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 - copyright violations. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expense Daily[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, I nearly speedied this one under WP:CSD#G11, corporate spam piece with no reliable sources. All "references" given are self-references to Wikipedia or links to the app store. No independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the app. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:04, 11 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laticrete International[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability. Non-notable company. Existence is not notability. Promotional ad copy. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another run of the WP:MILL company. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have any references to notable news, events or actions. Most content was added under the original page creation edit back in 2009 Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional in tone, and no significant coverage from third-party sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The constant use of all caps for the company's name makes the promotional tone glaringly-obvious. Alexius08 (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SNOW. I don't think anything else can be said, or anything can be said to keep this. South Nashua (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Marie Frontczak[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR lacks significant third party coverage. Elenamost (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR--EC Racing (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses/models, which is the only role that Frontczak has received notice for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting trivia, but unfortunately does not pass notability considerations. Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A11, part of a long term problem -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympian (ZackComics)[edit]

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

No sign of notability. "ZackComics" which the characters purport to be from does not have an article, and further I cannot find reliable sources on it. As the comic is not notable, it certainly follows that a race within the comics is even less so. Note: page created on talk page by IP, and then moved to article space. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:17, 11 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution: The Tour 2018[edit]

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

Futurology. Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL and even if it didn't, there are no good sources to support a claim of notability. A Train^talk 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per A Train Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to have been slapped together, including a fan-made image. Article can be recreated when more details and media attention is created to craft a better article. Itsbydesign (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of current coverage the equivalent of Balloon Boy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by me as an unremarkable event. What sourcing there may have been was from the subject's page. I'm leery of deleting long standing articles as copyvio's-- sometimes the supposed source is the copy vio. Be that as it may, there was no significance-- simply a repeat of the subject's own annals, whichever came first. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Services Computing[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems the article contains no original content, it all being copied from various pages on thescc.org. Ignoring the copyright violations there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources of this conference. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Right One In (franchise)[edit]

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

There is no "franchise" as such. All relates to adaptations of the same novel, all of which are dealt with sufficiently at the novel article Let the Right One In (novel), so this is nothing more than a WP:CONTENTFORK. --wooden superman 13:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would also suggest a merge on this article as both articles have similar content. It seems like the editors were looking to differentiate the tv series, the novel and comic book. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because like Woodensuperman said, there is no franchise. The two films exist, but there are many instances of a book having two (or more) film adaptations without being considered franchises. Furthermore, no comic book series was ever made since the potential was announced in 2010. Also, regarding the TV series, TNT passed on the pilot, so Let the Right One In (TV series) may need to be merged to the book article. (Depends on if there are any Wikipedia guidelines to handling TV pilots that never pan out.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a navbox masquerading as an article. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and add any relevant information to the article about the book. This is taking the word "franchise" a bit too far. /Julle (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Nashville cast members#Main. "(Fan)Cruft" is not a deletion rationale; however non-compliance with GNG or notability in general is and as noted an interview is usually not enough to satisfy that. Roughly evenly split between deleting and redirecting here so going for a redirect per the recommendations at WP:ATD and in case someone has material to merge over. Edit warring ought to be settled at WP:ANEW seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett OConnor[edit]

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

OK, this has gone on long enough. User keeps reverting a redirect without adding proof that this subject is notable per our GNG. They keep on saying "but it's really a character on a show" as if that matters. Doesn't pass notability. I'll accept a redirect. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I agree, enough is enough. Not every character on every show ever filmed is notable enough for their own article. This one certainly isn't, and there has been zero effort to show that they are. No notability outside the fictional reality of the show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the character has appeared in all 108 episodes, and in most instances, these types of characters tend to have a have an article. And as much as I hate the listing of these fan cruft articles, organic WP precedent/policy states they are prohibited unless they have coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, whereas fan precedent means they automatically get an article, which is true of all fans, including sports fans, who are happily add fourth division and amateur clubs, which are outside remit. I could list any number of fan articles of popular series, which include byzantine, single glance, character presence, a single word spoken etc, resulting in an article. Anime is particularly bad. Why is this different? scope_creep (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 15 seconds of Google searching gives me this, which suggests there's plenty more. I see no indication a BEFORE search was conducted, and indeed it doesn't look like one was done. Like so many other fictional elements, we need editors who are willing to source and improve existing content on notable topics to make the notability self-documenting. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interviews are primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY, an article requires secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. An interview with a star about her character isn't sufficiently detached to show notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nashville_cast_members#Main. It seems like an appropriate target for the article as information about the character can already be found there. This may be a search term for a fan of the series (though, I admit that I do not imagine it will get a lot of use per say.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main Nashville page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main difference between this character's article and that of Rayna Jaymes's is the notable recognition, as given in the Jaymes lead. Bowen as O'Connor only has this. Screentime and sourced recap sites mean nothing. — Wylie pedia 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindset (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources are 1 article that doesn't mention the subject 3 passing mentions, 1 review in a discontinued blog, 1 interview about them being vegetarians on PETA advocacy site and an article about them splitting up. Domdeparis (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bamraulia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I have no idea why DGG de-prodded it in 2013 but it seems to have created another layer of bureaucracy for nothing. Sitush (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No source to prove notability.--MahenSingha (Talk) 11:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging @DGG: for input. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain at this point. I saw then, and see now, that we have similar articles for several dozen clans, and that it was appeared to be sourced. Rather than consider it uncontested, . it thought that it needed discussion, of what sourcing is appropriate for these. I think it still does. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost track of how many times I have tried to explain the issues of sourcing and caste identity to you, DGG, either directly or via discussions such as these. It seems to be a waste of my time. British Raj sources are not reliable, sources that claim to be affiliated to a caste are not reliable, castes themselves are often figments of the imagination based on past and/or current socio-economic jostling by vested interests, government lists are ambiguous etc. If we can't find recent mainstream academic sources that mention them, they're not notable. That's the consensus, that's been the consensus for years and, while it may change, you're going to have a hard job persuading a fairly active project that it should do and an even harder job explaining what this is all about to the many other people who simply sigh and hold their head in their hands when they see the word caste. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that you have not convinced me on any of these. Nor will you convince me by saying the same thing repeatedly without actually proving information to explain why. ERven in the Raj sources report oral tradition, we still include tradition--and even mythology,as long as they are reported in sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources that verify that this is a caste or clan. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources are available to provide any reliable encyclopedic information about this topic. Sitush might like to make a user subpage with brief notes of key points regarding topics like this because the bureaucracy demands a reason for deletion. To me it looks like the reason is that no one has produced a source showing notability. Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some items in my userspace but there are only two or three incorrigible (for want of a better word) experienced contributors in this sphere and the fact that they are incorrigible, in defiance of numerous past explanations and outcomes, means creating such a thing is highly unlikely to sway their opinion. Their main concern usually ends up being (a) WP:SYSTEMIC and (b) IDHT regarding the topic area. The problem is that such interventions can lead to a "no consensus" outcome and, despite WP:BURDEN, the default at AfD is that no consensus = keep. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but if there were a link in the nomination ("see here for background"), people like me would be in a better position to reach a decision, and better able to defend it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS makes it hard to ascertain the facts about this caste, if it does exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglian Medal Hunt Company[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text is riddled with peacockery perhaps appropriate for a company marketing brochure but not an encyclopaedia. Parts of it (in the "Facilities" section) are copied from a bylined source. If the article were to survive AfD, radical surgery would be needed on both counts. The many references about the competitive achievements of athletes in whom the firm has an interest are not appropriate: company notability is not inherited. Trying to disentangle the sources which are about the firm, several are similar announcement pieces from start-up; the most substantial is probably the 2014 LiveMint item, but I feel that is merely describing a company going about its business. Overall, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Purely promotional intent, and that is enough reason for deletion, even with the dubious notability. Our only real defense against advertising is to remove the article, and the onlu problem here is that we should have done that in 2013, when the first of several SPAs started it. We didn't have all the rules on undeclared paid editing then, but we did have our COI policy, which has always been strong enough to delete material like this. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Vettel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT not a fully pro competition and fail WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following pages for the same reasons all created by the same user

Domdeparis (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non of these sports people pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them per nom and Domdeparis. I'll admit I only looked at the first few, they didn't even appear to claim notability. So, I skipped the rest - assuming they're all the same. Ifnord (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identical articles 1 line and 1 primary source with the exception of Fabienne Wohlwend but even her's does not pass. Domdeparis (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as per nominator. None of these sports people seem to pass notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shaheer Corporation[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with OP's assessment. There does not appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Enough coverage & has made headlines. See: DAWN, Business Recorder, Express Tribune & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly self-serving advertising that could easily qualify as G11, showing Wikipedia is certainly not the place for them. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I agree that the article is poorly written and formatted it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria given the coverage in the following sources.

Tribune a leading news outlet in Pakistan.
Dawn Kagundu Talk To Me 07:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG - plenty of articles, even just from a quick Google search. Company has won awards, etc. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Please show which coverage you are talking about. Is it reliable? If not then it fails WP:RS. Greenbörg (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search results are not an indication of notability, and i've found that the the two awards won by the company are sourced to user-generated-content [6], [7], [8], or are awards given by a company-sponsored chamber of commerce. Both types of sources fail WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards won by the subject company are only cited to websites with user-generated content or primary sources, and the majority of the news articles about the Al-Shaheer Corporation concern the company being listed on a stock exchange (which does not confer notability per WP:LISTED.) In addition, the company does not seem to be individually notable within (none of the various articles on the subject indicated to me how this company is significantly notable within the meat packing industry) the industry and as such fails WP:MILL. In short, a company that has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG but does not fulfill Wikipedia's other criteria for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find some sources, but they're routine reporting on financial performance, like https://www.brecorder.com/2017/09/27/371743/al-shaheers-not-so-meaty-affairs/ or an unusable case study, like http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0972820117712305 I don't see anything that meets WP:COPRPDEPTH or otherwise establishes notability. Mduvekot (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 06:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean presidential election, 2023[edit]

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

~~Clear crystal ball exercise, written in the past tense even though it is scheduled to happen next decade.~~ Carrite (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs rewriting in the correct tense (which I've now done), but not a crystal ball exercise; we have numerous articles on elections scheduled to happen in the next decade (United States presidential election, 2020, Norwegian parliamentary election, 2021, French presidential election, 2022, which are explicitly allowed under WP:CRYSTAL. Number 5 7 13:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number57. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57. YewGotUp (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, all three of you have piled onto a wrong interpretation of the Crystal Ball exemption for future events. Here's a direct quote instead of a link to something you think the ~~guideline~~ policy says that it doesn't actually: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." There is NOTHING about a prospective election in Singapore six years hence that isn't speculative... Carrite (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally note that the country has had direct Presidential elections only since 1991, according to Presidential elections in Singapore... Who is to say that there will be another election on schedule six years from now? It's not a definite thing... There have been no preparations for it... Carrite (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Ping: Number 57, Lugnuts, YewGotUp[reply]

@Carrite: The Presidential election is highly likely to happen in 2023, unless the President resigns or is removed from office in other ways. Politically, there is little need for a President to request for a snap election, so it's unlikely for the election to occur earlier. And while you say there is "NOTHING" about a prospective election, there has already been coverage in the national newspaper about a candidate considering another bid in 2023: [9]. --YewGotUp (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

>>"There is NOTHING about a prospective election in Singapore six years hence that isn't speculative..." 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep Following cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presidential elections in Singapore are now an entrenched aspect of their political system. Given that the Singaporean Government has recently amended the Constitution's provisions on presidential nominations, it seems extremely likely that the election will take place as scheduled, thus meeting the basic requirements of WP:CRYSTAL. Eloquai (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and snow this closed. Nomination withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2017 (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. Per late provided evidence of GNG compliance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Hutty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Appears to be a promotional article about an ordinary engineer, failing GNG. I caught this in the backlog of the New Article queue, don't have strong feelings here but thought it best to kick this out for community input on the notability question. Carrite (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The awards mean that she passes WP:ANYBIO and the casual nature of the nomination is contrary to WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which award do you find compelling? Carrite (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Delete This one is more on the line. Her work on the rover is notable, but she may have not led that design. Receiving awards in engineering practice from local or regional organizations is not uncommon including engineer of the year. What differentiates this article? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has over 100K members in over 100 countries. It has a long and illustrious history and so being its youngest ever Fellow is not a minor, local/regional accolade. Andrew D. (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your point as a national award. The Institute is primarily positioned for members in the United Kingdom. There are hundreds of professional associations, however, I don't think that alone is notable. Otherwise we would be creating articles for the young medical doctor, brewer, real estate agent of the year articles for every xyz professional association for every country for groups that are much larger and equally as 'illustrious'. The youngest fellow award may be notable and the fact that she worked for ESA. Beyond this I'm not sure we would create articles for every xyz of the year award that's not very well known to the general public. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randomeditor1000 created the article Stomper the Maverick who doesn't seem to have won any kind of award from any organisation. He should please explain why the subject in question is less notable. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) need to have won awards to be WP:Notable? I'm confused by your question. But I would generally agree that caricature is a local/regional subject that may not be notable. I don't think that discussion has weight with regards to this article. After looking at news articles she seems to be a role model being referenced by the Guardian and the Telegraph. I'm still somewhat conflicted on this one though. In my field I work with civil engineers who are similarly positioned in my locale but are not on WP. I have revised my opinion, but I think I will leave this left for more consensus. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm fine with a fast finish here with a withdrawn nomination if you can show me how this nomination is off base because I missed something obvious: a few independently-published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject or a major award that gets the subject through a SNG or what have you... But leaping in with a recommendation of a "Speedy Keep," accusing me of biting newcomers (!!1), and then not making an orderly defense but leaping to a specious OTHERSTUFF argument involving a fictional character isn't gonna impress anyone, least of all me. I saw a fairly spammy-looking piece in the 5 day old section of the New Articles queue and brought it here rather than marking it Approved or ignoring it... Yeah, there's a lot of Google hits for the subject, yeah, the subject has worked on an important engineering project that has garnered news coverage. Less noise and more substance, please. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: I've done some spring-cleaning on the article, including more sources such a mention in The Guardian and adding citations on all unsourced content per WP:BLPSOURCES. Does it look any better now? It's a shame the first couple of editors couldn't have done this instead of accusing you of bad faith and throwing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS excuses at you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the sources nor the awards show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable - not just for the awards, but also media coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coordinator of all of the specialists working on the ExoMars rover structure is notable, then there's all the media coverage (this level of public engagement work seems to fulfil criteria 7 of WP:Notability (academics), and the awards seem to satisfy criteria 2) - seems as notable to me as other engineers such as George Henry Challenger, Ovadia Harari, Frank Irving or Arthur Davenport (engineer) (none of whom have been AfD'd). Zeromonk (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: Election to a body like the ICE is one of the hallmarks of NOTE. In this case, the fact that she's also had the record setting election makes it more the case. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maury Markowitz and above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many, many, many suitable news sources that can be used. I've added a bunch to the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ritchie. Meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by GB fan (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Saif ALDin Mohamed ALFarany[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not a memorial site. No references and no indication of meeting general notability, as well as blatantly non-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete article already deleted on Arabic Wikipedia (w:ar:Saif_ALDin_Mohamed_ALFarany). fails WP:GNG, No single reference, search yield no any notable mention -Ammarpad (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Sourced to Hamas memorial. SOLDIER fail. NPOV fail. Poor style and written as a religious eulogy.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2017 (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. A redirect may be created separately. Sandstein 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parabanks Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to explain why this shopping centre is notable due to the fact that it isn't at all notable. As per previous AFD (No Consensus 2K/3D) the article fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:ROTM. All third-party published media about this shopping centre fails to establish notability as per the guidelines; Localised third-party sources merely discussing routine additions of new tenants, run-of-the-mill renovations etc that all shopping centres experience do not establish notability within the realm of shopping centres, nor is it a significant landmark within the region. Article has been notability tagged since December 2016, without improvement. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Speedy Close/Keep - The last AfD which went over 22 days closed by ATrain as "No Consensus" only a day ago. [10]. Absurdly too early for another one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Procedural Closure
Comment: - A finding of 'No Consensus' does not preclude opportunity for renomination by previously uninvolved parties - Hence there is no grounds for a proceedural closure despite Oakshade's benighted WP:WIKILAWYER attempt. Protection from immediate renomination is only granted to articles whose AFDs had resulted in 'Keep', as per WP:DPAFD. Further, I would propose that Oakshade’s view that the article be kept goes solely to the existence of the recent nomination, and does not in any form serve to invalidate the assessment that the article is of a non-notable shopping centre... Unless he finds something that establishes notability, then I fear the article concerned is not long for this world... Keep votes that fail to address the reasonable grounds for deletion are usually ignored, as is as they should be. «l\|Promethean\|l» (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Comment: *Honestly, that is some major WP:WIKILAWYER language you just used while I didn't use any LAWYER language. But since you'd like to be all LAWYER about this, the just-finished AfD was not closed WP:NPASR and per NPASR, speedy-renomination is not appropriate. Also per WP:DPAFD, "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." By the guideline you linked, this is a disruptive nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Wonderful omission bias, do you write articles like this? The reason I ask is due to the fact that the sentence directly proceeding the text you paraphrased reads "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping** the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page." - Hence, the context of the guidance about disruptive renomination is specifically regarding a scenario where the community has expressed a clear view to keep an article, but the participant renominates the article for deletion anyway, which I agree would be disruptive. But as you know, there was no consensus made in the previous nomination for any outcome, and the article concerned has been notability tagged for an extended period of time thus giving users ample time to correct the issues, and hence a previously uninvolved editor (like myself) seeking to come to a definitive conclusion is not a disruptive act - To accuse me of such is an act of WP:BADFAITH. In regards to WP:NPASR, the guideline you linked specifically indicates that a finding of no consensus does not "prejudice against speedy renomination". I give your WP:LAWYER skills a 3/10 for effort, but don't race to quit your day job! «l\|Promethean\|l» (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Have just re-read OakShade's attempt to lawyer, it just occurred to me that they totally misinterpreted the meaning of "with no prejudice against speedy renomination"... For his benefit, it means that any party is welcome to speedily renominate the article. «l\|Promethean\|l» (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] That's the point, not to mention a true omission bias. The AfD closed only a day before this inappropriate re-nomination was NOT closed as no consensus "with no prejudice against speedy renomination", just as "no consensus." That's a huge difference. Even by the quote from WP:NPASR you used, speedy re-nomination is inappropriate. 1/10 in WP:LAWYER skills my friend. --Oakshade (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] Where exactly was the option for "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" exactly? Oh wait, there isn't one! That's because findings of no consensus are inherently without prejudice in the given context. The mere fact that this AFD is being allowed to run and others are participating is evidence of this. You've also failed to address the simple notion that attempting to come to a clear consensus as a previously uninvolved party is not a disruptive act. «l\|Promethean\|l» (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] If the closing admin ATrain closed it as "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" instead of just "no consensus", they would've explicitly said so and cited WP:NPASR as all closing admins with that specific close do. [11][12][13] are examples. The closing admin here didn't do so. Even by WP:LAWYERing standards, this was a disrupted nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] I think the word you mean is disruptive... Though I agree that this nomination has been disrupted by a benighted Wikilaywer too. But that aside, I can't help but think we're going around in circles here and that attempting to achieve a consensus on an issue is not an act of disruption nor could it ever be. All material you've referenced claiming that renominations are disruptive only applies in the circumstance of a 'Keep'result being ignored, and no such result exists. Secondly, to humour your parrot lawyering, A Train might not have expressly used the "without prejudice" template, but they certainly didn't use the "with prejudice" template either! Finally, I'd like to give you the opportunity to contest the reason for deletion directly. Is this shopping centre notable? Why is it notable exactly? Can you provide a reference that establishes notability? Your entire involvement here has failed to address the elephant in the room - The subject of the article isn't at all notable, and I suspect you've resorted to procedural motions as a last ditch attempt to ignore the obvious truth. «l\|Promethean\|l» (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Procedural Closure

- Comment: - A finding of 'No Consensus' does not preclude opportunity for renomination by previously uninvolved parties - Hence there is no grounds for a proceedural closure despite Oakshade's benighted WP:WIKILAWYER attempt. Protection from immediate renomination is only granted to articles whose AFDs had resulted in 'Keep', as per WP:DPAFD. Further, I would propose that Oakshade’s view that the article be kept goes solely to the existence of the recent nomination, and does not in any form serve to invalidate the assessment that the article is of a non-notable shopping centre... Unless he finds something that establishes notability, then I fear the article concerned is not long for this world... Keep votes that fail to address the reasonable grounds for deletion are usually ignored, as is as they should be. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ***Honestly, that is some major WP:WIKILAWYER language you just used while I didn't use any LAWYER language. But since you'd like to be all LAWYER about this, the just-finished AfD was not closed WP:NPASR and per NPASR, speedy-renomination is not appropriate. Also per WP:DPAFD, "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." By the guideline you linked, this is a disruptive nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Wonderful omission bias, do you write articles like this? The reason I ask is due to the fact that the sentence directly proceeding the text you paraphrased reads "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page." - Hence, the context of the guidance about disruptive renomination is specifically regarding a scenario where the community has expressed a clear view to keep an article, but the participant renominates the article for deletion anyway, which I agree would be disruptive. But as you know, there was no consensus made in the previous nomination for any outcome, and the article concerned has been notability tagged for an extended period of time thus giving users ample time to correct the issues, and hence a previously uninvolved editor (like myself) seeking to come to a definitive conclusion is not a disruptive act - To accuse me of such is an act of WP:BADFAITH. In regards to WP:NPASR, the guideline you linked specifically indicates that a finding of no consensus does not "prejudice against speedy renomination". I give your WP:LAWYER skills a 3/10 for effort, but don't race to quit your day job! «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have just re-read OakShade's attempt to lawyer, it just occurred to me that they totally misinterpreted the meaning of "with no prejudice against speedy renomination"... For his benefit, it means that any party is welcome to speedily renominate the article. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the point, not to mention a true omission bias. The AfD closed only a day before this inappropriate re-nomination was NOT closed as no consensus "with no prejudice against speedy renomination", just as "no consensus." That's a huge difference. Even by the quote from WP:NPASR you used, speedy re-nomination is inappropriate. 1/10 in WP:LAWYER skills my friend. --Oakshade (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Where exactly was the option for "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" exactly? Oh wait, there isn't one! That's because findings of no consensus are inherently without prejudice in the given context. The mere fact that this AFD is being allowed to run and others are participating is evidence of this. You've also failed to address the simple notion that attempting to come to a clear consensus as a previously uninvolved party is not a disruptive act. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If the closing admin ATrain closed it as "no consensus with prejudice against speedy renomination" instead of just "no consensus", they would've explicitly said so and cited WP:NPASR as all closing admins with that specific close do. [11][12][13] are examples. The closing admin here didn't do so. Even by WP:LAWYERing standards, this was a disrupted nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the word you mean is disruptive... Though I agree that this nomination has been disrupted by a benighted Wikilaywer too. But that aside, I can't help but think we're going around in circles here and that attempting to achieve a consensus on an issue is not an act of disruption nor could it ever be. All material you've referenced claiming that renominations are disruptive only applies in the circumstance of a 'Keep'result being ignored, and no such result exists. Secondly, to humour your parrot lawyering, A Train might not have expressly used the "without prejudice" template, but they certainly didn't use the "with prejudice" template either! Finally, I'd like to give you the opportunity to contest the reason for deletion directly. Is this shopping centre notable? Why is it notable exactly? Can you provide a reference that establishes notability? Your entire involvement here has failed to address the elephant in the room - The subject of the article isn't at all notable, and I suspect you've resorted to procedural motions as a last ditch attempt to ignore the obvious truth. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill shopping mall. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the usual minimum size for a shoppingmall to be considered notable is 100,000 sq. meters (approximately one million sq ft) This i only 1/4 of that, and there is no special reason for makign an exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Promethean: There's no specific rule against renominating an article two days after a no consensus debate, but you can imagine that AfD would be chaos if it became common practice. The typical process is to give it a couple of months. A Train^talk 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @A Train: I understand and respect that this cannot be common practice, but I genuinely believe the original AFD was valid for this particular article, hence the exceptional renomination. So far the consensus validates my renomination. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per vote in previous AfD discussion. And yes, that one was closed prematurely. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually believe that it was closed prematurely then you should take it to WP:DRV. I am not sure how why you think it was closed prematurely when the discussion had been open for almost a calendar month and had been relisted twice; debates are not to be relisted three times except in extraordinary circumstances. A Train^talk 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill shopping centre. the main coverage centres around renovations. almost every Australian shopping centre has received a renovation in the past 20 years. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the others, run of the mill shopping mall.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - ~~All but one of~~ the above !voters who voted to "Delete" in the recently closed AfD ~~were subject to WP:CANVASS~~ by the nom.[14][15][16][17] None of those who !voted to "Keep" were notified. Note that my !vote here was strictly procedural. No prejudice on the merits of this article, ~~but the nom's CANVASS behavior needs to be noted~~. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit - All participants of the previous AFD were informed, including Paul foord and Jabberjawjapan who were the sole Keep !voters. Informing all previous participants in a neutral and transparent manner is not an act of WP:CANVASS, but rather an attempt to keep the participation of all editors who were previously involved, including those who I personally disagree with. Unfortunately this type of false and dishonest representation is stereotypical of Oakshade. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what? I'll happily stand corrected and am glad the user didn't CANVAS. Unlike the above user, there is never foul language and false claims (graciously corrected if needed) to other users, not to mention WP:STALK as this user has been doing to me in the last couple of days, a fact I'm happy to provide diffs for. I hope going forward Promethean will learn from this example and participate cordially with all users, even those he disagrees with.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just had the misfortune to read the "discussions" here. In brief, may I suggest a thorough reread of Wikipedia:Civility. JabberJaw_JAPAN talk 06:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salisbury, South Australia#Retail where it is mentioned. It doesn't look notable, but alternatives to deletion are available for non-notable topics. I'd like some of the above "delete" !voters to explain why they don't want a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:26, 18 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DC Hill Zunheboto[edit]

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

Not notable. Unsourced (neither source mentions DC Hill). I suspect it was just created for the football team. Batternut (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good catch, Batternut. If this was a real town/designated place it would automatically qualify for inclusion per WP:GEOLAND, but "DC Hill" does not appear in the cited references or in a wider search. Almost a CSD-worthy hoax. A Train^talk 16:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After spending just a little time on searching online, I realised "DC Hill" is a locality/colony in the namesake district HQ Zunheboto. Zunheboto itself is a town (not city), so the colony in discussion doesnt have an individual post office either. This exludes it from WP:GEOLAND. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Wokha[edit]

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

Not notable. The one not-dead source does not mention Greater Wokha. Google book search finds nothing that mentions Greater Wokha, nor does the census of India. Batternut (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOTABILITY. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:48, 11 October 2017 (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 World Day of Prayer. In case someone has anything worth merging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Fast in Prayer[edit]

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

Lackluster page. Very short. No sources. Not even any information. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) The intention is to create structured sites for all World prayer days including:[reply]

title
country
flag
information about attendance and other materials

and to have these articles be based on Wikidata items This first article was created by me to show that it would in principle be possible to create such pages (if only there would not be the stricter deletion policies of these days which kill such articles shortly after birth :-( --WolfgangFahl (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hardly has anything. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this ought to be in CSD, only taking about one day, fails WP:GNG, no sufficient content to develop -Ammarpad (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hold_Fast_in_Prayer and changes in article to show what this could evolve to. What's the minimum for a valid stub?WolfgangFahl (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REALPROBLEM. Subject isn't notable. The original author needs to learn how to use user sandboxes for these test concepts. Besides, per WP:LISTN, standalone lists would only contain notable entries and none of these are likely to be notable. This is just a bad idea from the start. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:LISTN states, "...individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...". Unscintillating (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every year there is a lot of activity around these days. Looking at newspapers.com [18], this extends back to 1932, indeed back to 1887. I think an article suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia could be written for most (all?) of the individual days. However, the creation of an article like this with little or no attempt to show the page's notability and to use reliable sources and the suggestion that dozens more such articles may soon be built is a bit disruptive. I strongly endorse working on these articles in user or draft space one at a time. There is no minimum for a valid stub, check out Wikipedia:Your first article for some advice and consider Wikipedia:Articles for creation for your first articles to get more feedback as you get started. Feel free to ask for adice (I'm happy to help, also consider the Wikipedia:Teahouse). If the author is interested in moving this page (and the other similar pages) to user or draft space, I endorse that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ran some searches, very little reference to this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/REdirect to World Day of Prayer. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to World Day of Prayer. Unscintillating (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2017 (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. We do not usually consider coverage we wish were there when deciding on whether an article merits to exist, but we sure consider coverage which exists and is uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayqa Khan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All the refs seem to be both niche and are either press releases or reported interviews. Nothing here is independent and reliable. The whole article reads as a promotional piece. Probably way too soon. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-white figures, women in particular, are persistently underrepresented on the site and arguing that the coverage they have had isn't good enough is one reason why. Rookie, Huffington Post and WNYC are all reputable platforms. Further, the page was last edited substantively in March of 2017. Did you make any attempt to find more recent references before applying the deletion tag? This is a good example of a page that requires revision rather than deletion. If the writing reads like a promotional piece - and to be clear, I wrote it and have no affiliation with her - then the writing can be reworked. Obviously, my vote is to Keep it. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made various text edits and have added more references. I encourage you to do the same. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG .None of the references are WP:RS and none of them have significant coverage about the subject.122.164.255.107 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"..none of them have significant coverage about the subject" is untrue. Feel free to argue for page deletion, but can we at least agree to do so in good faith? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor you're replying to is an IP with 3 edits, all to AfD. I doubt the closing admin is going to give that a lot of weight. A Train^talk 16:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a well-sourced article to me. Depth of coverage from WP:RSes like the Village Voice, VICE, and WNYC. Her work was selected for a major exhibition at the Cooper Union, which should satisfy WP:ARTIST criterion 4. A Train^talk 16:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .Pakistani Wikipedian (talk)
Delete arguments that the coverage of certain ethnic groups is not quality enough to pass notability guidelines is admission that people are not noted. Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs. We follow actual coverage, not the coverage people wish was there, and in this case we lack coverage that rises to the level required by our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilmah[edit]

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

G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion Creditor8989 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relies primarily on primary sources (no pun intended). This might also violate WP:NOTABILITY. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:NCOMPANY - see [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mindless nomination by an obviously incompetent editor. Definitely not G11 material. Not all of the links posted by Dan arndt are credible or significant enough to establish notability (like the blog post by the founder himself), but some of them ([29], [30], [31]) are. Edit: Just a quick Google search will reveal many others, like [32], [33], [34], [35] etc. I think the nominator should either withdraw their nomination, or this AfD should be speedily closed, as it is nonsensical (and looking at the nominator's talk page and COI concerns, it could have been made in bad faith, possibly as an attempt to harm their competition or something).—J. M. (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A glance at the Google indicates that this is a notable brand. See Dan A's sources above. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the world's most famous brands of tea, and the biggest seller in some countries, 6th largest in the world. No idea why anyone would nominate this for AFD. Probably a demonic coffee drinker. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability can be established by reliable sources which have covered the subject, and a lot more skimming the topic under discussion. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:10, 18 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dunn (actress)[edit]

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

Actress in TV commercials and a minor role in one film, nothing to suggest she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this for speedy deletion for the same reasons. I am not convinced about significance, but there is no evidence at all of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user above -Ammarpad (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of guidelines of notability for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author created JUST enough edits in her one-month tenure to qualify as autoconfirmed, and then published this piece and its corresponding talk page and stopped editing (six days ago). This is a classic pattern for undisclosed paid editors (also, no paid editing disclosure is on article talk page, user page, or in any edit summary). I could go on, but the consensus here seems clear already. KDS4444 ^(talk) 19:14, 16 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kade Chan[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotional article. Nearly all self-published references, many simple blog posts about his origami creations. —Guan aco 20:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed! it's a self-marketing page/article going undercover through wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.123.54 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see a couple of decent refs (E.G. FORBES) in a search, but not enough to establish notability. Existing refs are weak. I trimmed the article significantly.96.127.242.251 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2017 (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 Abhay and Rani Bang. Kind of a SOFTDELETE-like redirect: People who want to merge can take the information from the history, people who want the article gone have it gone and if the amount of comments here are seen as insufficient they can easily contest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Education Action and Research in Community Health[edit]

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

This is just a group work of two people and their assistants , each of the two have articles that cover the subject . There is no special notability for the center. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Abhay and Rani Bang, which only has a single passing mention. This will improve the merge target article per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:28, 11 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mathews[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Non notable actor who doesn't warrant a dedicated page Pupsbunch (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only notable for a role in a single 90-minute TV special. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page & Redirect This guy is a completely obscure actor who is only listed on Wikipedia by virtue of being one of a list of actors who portrayed a character called Rassilon in Doctor Who. But he was only in one episode and even in that was just a brief cameo for a couple of minutes of screen-time right at the end. The "notability" comes not from the actor himself or coverage & reviews of his performance but because of who he played. I therefore think, since that character has its own page, he should be redirected to Rassilon and the actor's page consigned to history Darthamender (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of IMDb, which seeks to categorize everyone who ever appared on stage, we have listing in a book of fancruft. Nothing even close to the coverage in reliable sources Wikipedia requires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Sandeelo[edit]

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

No such coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Tamgha-e-Imtiaz is fourth in level so certainly not enough. Greenbörg (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Ali Yasa[edit]

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

No real coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there non-English coverage?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete described a little by an unreliable source, but nothing more. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woodley[edit]

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

The subject of this article has written to Wikimedia (ticket:2017100310009766) requesting removal of this article. I have explained that we do not automatically remove articles upon request, but in the case of an article in which notability is a close call, some editors are willing to give some weight to the preference of the subject. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NPROF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing an obvious PROF pass here, nor a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if that's what he wants no objection given that he doesn't clearly meet WP:PROF. Blythwood (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laren Bright[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Won an Emmy as part of a group of 7, which is impressive, but not enough for notability for the individual. That it is an unref blp (with an external link to a source specifically banned at WP:RELIABLESOURCES) is an issue, but doesn't impact on notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources that cover the subject directly and in detail. TV writers are rarely notable, and this one misses the mark. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the world's most prominent women[edit]

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

List with inclusion criteria that are impossible to define. Prod was already rejected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. No inclusion criteria, no ranking criteria and a suggested limit of 200 entries. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"World's Most Prominent" wasn't the best of titles, too subjective, how do we measure "most prominent" - fame, money, sources available? I do think having a list of core women is encyclopedic but if we're to do so we need some sort of strict criteria for inclusion as there's potentially thousands of entries. When it comes to prominent actresses for instance, how do we measure who or who shouldn't be included? Angelina Jolie or Meryl Streep you could probably argue are prominent too, but how would you argue that above people like Nicole Kidman or Kate Winslet etc?.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely subjective inclusion parameters, no objective metric possible. Carrite (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I won't comment on its value as a mainspace article, however could the closer kindly move it to User:Ipigott's user-space or to project space (under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red) rather than actually deleting it. It may be premature to have this as an actual article, but I expect the basic idea will be back once it has been figured out what to do with the inclusion criteria. Dysklyver 15:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, this is never going to meet the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE. There is no conceivable objective rationale for inclusion or exclusion. (Also Meryl Streep outranks Queen Victoria? Not on my watch.) It's a kind thought on A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver's part to move it to Women in Red, but that's ultimately pointless. That whole project is about creating articles for notable women; everyone on this arbitrary list is already a blue link. A Train^talk 16:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a Women in Green area, not Red, I've put the list in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Most prominent women to keep it safe as it's a useful list whatever happens here. It's possible that it could be the basis of a future contest focusing on quality of core bios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a resource for a Wikiproject, this is great. It's impossible to defend as a mainspace article, especially with the apparent numeric rankings that seem to be an original synthesis. A Train^talk 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry but this is a clear violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. However as Dysklyver and Dr. Blofeld state above I would not be opposed if this article were to be moved or userfied to some other location. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the light of the various discussions about this article, I also agree that in its present form, the presentation is not suitable for the mainspace. I was obviously too hasty in moving it there. Nevertheless, given all the literature and the many websites addressing the issue in one way or another, I think some thought needs to be given to how best to cover the impact women achievers have had over the centuries, perhaps as a well-referenced timeline or in running prose rather than as a list. As for lists, one constructive suggestion has been that we might create a list of world women's firsts along the lines of List of American women's firsts. In any case, now that Dr. Blofeld has kindly copied the list to Women in Green, we can decide on the best way to go forward.--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is more suited to Wikipedia project space as an assist for various purposes. A list of women's firsts is also likely to become too big though. (I assume this is a list of women who are the first woman to do something, eg first woman to climb Mt Everest). The list we have is already very incomplete and very USA-centric but at least it is well defined. A list of woman who were the first human to do something may be a manageable list though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the editors above, no parameters for inclusion, and with 2 billion women alive, not to mention those who have dies, the list could be infinite. A clear violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete Completely subjective list and inclusion criteria. Also per Deathlibrarian. Met meg an slay 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote from indef blocked sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. No criteria for inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few days ago, user Dr. Blofeld moved the page to List of notable women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 50.0.205.192 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as we don't maintain such lists. Greenbörg (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no objective inclusion criteria for measuring "prominence" stated here — Carla Bruni but not Theresa May? Madonna but not Beyoncé? Aretha Franklin but not Ella Fitzgerald? Michelle Obama but not Nancy Reagan? J. K. Rowling but not Margaret Atwood? — so literally just about any woman with a Wikipedia article at all could be added to it, and that wouldn't be useful. Lists of noteworthy women grouped specifically by occupation would be more acceptable, but many such lists already exist — concentrating on gaps within that system would be more useful than this is. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like more of a pet project, of the sort one would see on a personal webpage, article, or blog. It's not an encyclopedic entry at all, because there is no inclusion criteria and no metric or source of authority to include or exclude anyone except possibly the presence of a Wikipedia article and an image on Commons. I do like the layout, with the small thumbnails at the left, but the failure to qualify the concept makes this a nonstarter. Lists like these must be titled and grouped with strict and clear parameters rather than with WP:INDISCRIMINATE non-exclusionary titles. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl might have some good ideas for group concepts that meet Wikipedia's article notability guidelines and retention standards. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pennybox[edit]

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

Non notable They have so far not yet accomplished anything. The references are a mixture of PR and mere notices, as usual for this sort of article. I think it was absurd to have accepted this from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are some sources: [36], [37], [38]. Technically meets WP:GNG, although on a weak level. Not particularly absurd to AfC-accept. Don't care if it's deleted, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recent start-up, describing its proposition, funding and beta progress, which is the typical coverage needed by any start-up. The best of the sources place its proposition in relation to competitors in its field, indicating some independent perspective, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability, whether WP:CORPDEPTH for the company or WP:PRODUCT for their app. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per AllyD. There is no evidence that this start up which operates in a very crowded space is of lasting notability. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and lacks the coverage needed by WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if something passes WP:GNG it doesn't means automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. Also considering many valid concerns raised ealier, WP:SPA, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and article written more or less like WP:PROMO Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. (treating as an expired PROD). WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabudha Saurabh[edit]

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

I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the article, as well as the ones I can find online, don't seem to show that he meets WP:AUTHOR. Marquardtika (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 11 October 2017 (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 consensus was delete (or at least "not keep"). The article is short enough that WP:TNT is a viable option, should the subject (or something similar) be deemed to be noteworthy. The 'keep' arguments center around renaming the article to something that doesn't sound so obviously non-notable, which I don't find to be a compelling rationale, particularly when the proposed new name puts the article into a slippery-slope situation where the goalposts for inclusion would be easily moved. The suggestion to list these players in articles about individual first-class clubs seems like the best and most stable alternative. I'm happy to restore the contents to draft space if the content is needed for future reference, although with only 3 entries in the list with only stats pages for references, I doubt that will be necessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers[edit]

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

Having a list of things we don't know about seems to be particularly strange. It's essentially a paradox - if we can't verify them, we can't put them in WP, but if we CAN verify them we can't put them on this list. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Lesser known is essentially the same as not notable at all. Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with listing editor this is a non-notable list about non-notable individuals. Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Sri Lankan cricketers with unidentified given names. This page name is unambiguous and would be a useful place to store information on those players who will struggle, due to a lack of biographical information, to be verifiable as reasonable targets of a page - i.e. where we have only very limited database entries about them. The page name suggested is stolen totally from List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names - a featured list - and was suggested to the editor who created this page. It is an objective naming strategy rather than one where the name of the article requires a judgement to be made. As can be seen from discussions such as WP:Articles for deletion/J. Desai there are editors who would argue that articles where we have very limited biographical information should always be kept as a matter of process and others who would argue that they should be deleted based on the lack of information. A page such as this - with an objective name - is a compromise that might just go some way to allow information to be kept on Wikipedia and articles developed should sources eventually become available. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is badly titled – who decides which cricketers are lesser known? But it's misconceivedly unencyclopedic anyway. Who would ever search for an article with this (or any alternative) name? Much better to tag these articles (and others like them) with a category that highlights their incompleteness and then, if the cricket sources aren't helpful, appeal to other specialist groups to see if they can help flesh them out. These are not non-notable people: all the articles pass the relevant SNG, so there is a presumption that they can pass WP:GNG, but they lack information. Johnlp (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- @Bobo192:, @Greenbörg:, @Dee03:, @TheGracefulSlick:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Steve Quinn:, @Rhadow:, @Blue Square Thing: -- There is a group of cricketers who have made a first-class appearance, which makes them notable as far as WP:NCRIC is concerned. A single appearance is disqualifying for an article under WP:BLP1E. These players appear only in one or two cricket databases. There is no English-language press coverage. I have no idea whether there is Sinhalese coverage. A list is a compromise between the cricket fans' inclusionist bent and the deletionist view of others. The current title is imperfect; I modeled it after List of minor biblical figures, A–K. The cricket fans say the current name is disparaging and implies a value judgement. Propose another name. The distinguishing feature of this list is the single appearance or lack of press coverage, not the unknown first name. Tagging is not a solution. These articles have been tagged for a decade. Some of the cricket experts have taken an intransigent stand, relying on the published standard WP:NCRIC and the ten years some of these articles have gone unchallenged. WP:NODEADLINE is being used to shift the responsibility for facts from the editor to the challenger, who is asked to prove that there is no coverage (a logical fallacy). Please think about a workable solution, not why others' suggests are not. Rhadow (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This again? If you're willing to come up with NPOV criteria by which to judge a list of articles by which we can all work, do so. Otherwise, please don't disrespect 10, nearly 15 years of work. This is nothing to do with "inclusionism". It's simple. Choose a rule, stick to it. One major cricketing appearance, as has been the accepted rule for nearly 15 years? Okay. Ten? Two hundred? Suggest it through the appropriate channels. Every single other sporting Wikiproject works to a single major appearance in a top league. Instead of saying, "Why is WP:CRIC so inclusive", you should ask, "Why should we be making WP:CRIC any different"? If you are deciding to get rid of articles which fit clearly-defined inclusion criteria, this is your choice but goes against years' worth of decision making, guideline writing, and so on.

One rule, and stick to it. This is nothing to do with inclusionism. This is about having one, simple, clearly-defined rule, as is the same as every rule on every other competitive team sport. The very title of this article breaches NPOV. Bobo . 14:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)!![reply]

@Rhadow: I've already proposed another name - twice. List of Sri Lankan cricketers with unidentified given names is totally objective. You're in or you're out. Just as on the MLB list, there may be the odd occasion where someone on that list can pass the GNG tests that several RfC have clearly determined that they should, in which case they can be linked from the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obvious problem here with GNG and so forth. Let's say that I, one day, made an appearance in a first-class match in... say, Zimbabwe. Those who know nothing about Zimbabwean cricket then say, "technically this guy meets guidelines but I know nothing about Zimbabwean cricket so delete". But then they find out that according to the Harare Daily Chronicle, I was wearing an inflatable hippopotamus suit. Because this therefore appeared in a published qualification, I have become notable not as "the guy who made a first-class cricketing appearance" but as "the guy who dressed in an inflatable hippopotamus suit".

Does anyone else see the problem here? Bobo . 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem - it's a One Event BLP issue Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course the guy received national media coverage because he appeared in a giant inflatable hippopotamus suit, then he has been named in sources which people perceive to be independent of the event... Bobo . 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still One Event - if the only reason they get coverage is because they have appeared as a hippo !!and that's the only thing that the articles discuss, then it's clearly a OE issue which is easily resolved Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing:, @Dee03: if the rest agree, a move is fine. Are you proposing that the other articles with known given and surnames stay, even with a single appearance and no press coverage besides a scorecard? BTW, Bobo, this matter has gone to the appropriate channels Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Rhadow (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: I don't know to be honest. I was more concerned with the set of articles we have in front of us just now. When there is more biographical information available then I think verifiability becomes less of an issue and there is, frankly, more chance of finding sources on the person. My general feeling is that those articles are less likely to be deleted - I would need to see each article on a case by case basis anyway and to carry out the sorts of checks that are needed before voting in any AfD. I suppose !!in an ideal world we'd have lists of players for each FC team where articles could be redirected as required. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first-class cricket has a simple, universally applicable definition. Anyone who is against the inclusion of every single first-class cricketer having an article is in clear breach of NPOV - or needs to choose, decide upon, select alternative inclusion criteria, take it through the appropriate channels, and have it implemented. And this is nothing to do with GNG either. We have proven time and time again that not only is GNG devalued by the very contradictions in its writing, and in contradictions with criteria in other places on the project, but that it is woolly and unverifiable at all levels. Having simple, defined, bright-line criteria is the only way to fairly, and neutrally, work on articles on Wikipedia. If you are in breach of these then you are the problem, not the solution. Bobo . 14:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - people are busy saying that this is a way of putting into a list people who are clearly non-notable individuals? By the very definition of WP:CRIC these are notable individuals. Want to change this? Go through the appropriate channels to suggest new NPOV criteria as consistent with every single other sporting Wikiproject.The way WP:CRIC defines "notable" is insultingly simple and understandable, and marries up with every single other team sporting Wikiproject. Bobo . 15:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has almost nothing to do with whether the individuals are notable. It's the fact that having this list does not make sense. It's basically saying "these players are notable for being lesser known." And I don't think that's the case, hence the nomination. If you can prove these people existed and appeared in a match, then make an individual article. The list is not notable. That's the only issue herein. I don't know the bigger issues within the cricket community, but I'm not trying to change anything there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with whether these individuals are notable, as this is why several of these individuals' articles are being deleted, this was the stop-gap solution, and this stop-gap solution is now being seen as unhelpful. This is the reason these specific cricketers were placed into this list. As for "proof", that's not what is required. Validation, yes. The fact that we can provide at least two references for every single first-class player, yes. If this is not enough then dare I suggest that we, as a project, have been going down the wrong road for more than ten years? Bobo . 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Bluesquarething, I guess I'm mostly asking this of you, and please know that I mean no harm, just throwing it out there as a random idea. Should there be an article on every team who have made a first-class appearance, such as List of Vidarbha cricketers, List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers? Making the assumption that everybody agrees that "lesser-known" is too POV a term to be used on Wikipedia, should we just group every first-class team by its first-class cricketers, then when people decide they want players deleted, we always have "the list" to fall back on... Bobo . 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - *grin* It looks like someone already wrote one for Vidarbha but couldn't be bothered to finish it..! Bobo . 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a common way to do things. I'd probably not limit it to First-class, but it would seem logical to have simple lists (and I would keep them simple fwiw) of players who have played for each team. It seems pretty common in, say, Major League Baseball, although the Football project seems to restrict the lists to those who have played a certain number of matches.

There are already categories which can do this but, to be honest, I don't know how many people necessarily use categories and they're of no use at all if there are players without an article for any reason Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to keeping them as simple lists, I would still tabulate the entries. Something similar to this... Bobo . 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name	Birth	Death	First-class span	Appearances
List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club first-class cricketers
ABC	01-01-01	01-01-01	1947-48 - 1948-49	2

@Bobo192: If they're short lists then tables are fine, but I find that when lists get longer that tables mean that I gloss over and can't read anything on them - and I'm much less likely to think about editing them. Sorry - not a fan of tables used like this! That's my rationale for simplicity if I'm honest - I'm more like to use it and to edit it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to something like List of Sri Lankan cricketers with one first-class appearance. Now, the dealbreaker is will anyone make the effort to fully expand the list and make it into something that could become similar to the List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names? Probably not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question after that is how do we deal with the individual first-class cricketers with a single first-class appearance who are still bluelinked? In the interest of maintaining NPOV but retaining these names, the only logical way is by redirecting every single one. It makes no sense to retain some and lose others. That is a clear violation of NPOV. Bobo . 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's nothing preventing having the stand-alone article and the entry on the list. If they have an article, great, blue-link it, and it's the best of both worlds. Compare List of Sri Lanka ODI cricketers. There's an entry for Ranjan Gunatilleke who only played in one ODI (I know his CI bio shows other FC matches), but for sake of this AfD, lets say that was his only match. There's nothing wrong in this case of having him on the list and a blue-link. I hate to bring football into this, but look at some of the lists in the category Category:Lists of association football players by club in England, esp. those for players with 1–24 appearances. Here's one example of a mix of blue links and non links. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on a semi-related note, I know that there are some Featured Lists with redlinks or no-links. This one being an example of the former. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After having time to sleep on this, probably the best solution is to setup list articles for each club, rather than break it down by x number of matches. Then if you get an AfD for a one-time wonder with no first name, no birth/death dates, etc, you can always redirect that article to the list, saving the edit history. The article can then always be restored IF new information is found at a later date. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of first-class cricketers by team? Alphabetical list sorted by surname? Would we want any extra data on the lists other than their full name (as best known by CA - therefore initials only if necessary)? Derbyshire, for example, has the players' first-class spans, and their given scorecard "name". This is how Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club's list would start (obviously the A would be a heading and the indents would be bulletpoints...):

A

RMN Abeysinghe (2011/12 - 2012/13) (RMN Abeysinghe)

PK Aluwihare (1997/98) (PK Aluwihare)

That's essentially what I've been keeping on my sandbox for the best part of the last ten years (albeit not in that form). Bobo . 09:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. This is the best solution we have. We should have lists where we can merge the content if it is per WP:BIO1E or fails WP:GNG for stand-alone article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to "who would know the real names of these cricketers" is high-profile cricketers they played alongside (even if this cricketer didn't know the full name of his teammate, he could at least say, "well, I knew his first name was Boris...") and so, full name or not, his name could probably be verified by a secondary source belonging to the club. (When I say "full name or not", what I mean is, if we had an entry for a KB Smith who played for Doncaster Dynamos, someone else at Doncaster Dynamos, either a player or someone in management, could verify that his first name was Kenny, so the entry would read Kenny Smith and the "name" section could say "Kenny B Smith"). For example, in PK Aluwihare's debut match, Dammika Ranatunga carried his bat. I still believe excluding certain individuals for some perceived non-rule is against the basic NPOV guideline of Wikipedia, but that's by the by. Give me a minute to find another example... Bobo . 09:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former KYCC player whose name is given on CA as N. de Silva played alongside former Test cricketer Lanka de Silva. Bobo . 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SSW Gunawardene (who played eleven first-class matches yet people don't know his given name) played against names such as Muttiah Muralitharan, Chandika Hathurusingha, Champaka Ramanayake, Upul Chandana... and that was just on his debut! "Mum, you know who I just met? Four legendary Test cricketers!" Bobo . 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U. Hettiarachchi
P. de Silva
U. Chandana ‎
J. Aponso
B. Abeywickreme
D. Abeyasekera
J. Bandujeewa
A. Amaranth
N. Fernando
Liyana de Silva

Suspiciously I wasn't notified that LdS had been taken to PROD, but that's unrelated to this conversation... Bobo . 00:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's better to have this page than to have stand-alone pages for each entry on this page. The page may need to be renamed, as it's not really a WP:SAL-style list article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky: I see where Power~enwiki is coming from but if letting things exist as a mans of preventing their existence is made widespread it kind of defeats the purpose of notability guidelines. If it is kept, all the people on that list need protecting from creation because otherwise there will just be heaps of G4s to deal with. I doubt people will be happy to do that so from a practical and ideological standpoint I'm going to have to go delete per stand-alone list criteria. The very fact "lesser-known" is in the title immediately suggests that the page will fail list notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of non notable people is non notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the one-first class apparance name proposed above. It is best to create articles with clearly defined names, and one first class apparence is clearly defined, "lesser known" is not well defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over per WP:TNT. Although a list article is a good way to deal with players for whom only bare statistics are available, I do not think this list is well conceived. It would be better to have lists of players by club instead, presented as a long table of names and statistics. Of course, players notable individually would be blue-linked. Maybe something like this:

List of Derpshire Cricket Club players
Name	Years	Matches	Runs	Batting Average	HS	Wickets	Bowling Average	BBI	Catches	Stumpings
John Q. Citizen	1972-1990	139	6131	29.33	207*	83	42.11	6/52	91	0
W. Citizen	1907	1	37	18.5	26	1	112	1/90	0	0

This would at least avoid the problem of saying more than the sources do, which is a common issue when inflating stats to prose. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, long lists of tables like that are, for me, impenetrable and very difficult to use. I also find them extremely difficult to edit - to the extent that I would simply not edit them. A list such as List of Islamabad United cricketers - perhaps with a little more detail (number of games perhaps) - strikes me as much more usable and maintainable. It's not so bad if a list has a caretaker who aims to maintain it (this one has that - probably, but this other one doesn't and hasn't been updated since September 2014). Tables are all very well if there aren't many entries or where a team is defunct, but really suck when they need to be updated regularly (say, for currently operating teams) and have a tonne of entries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. Big lists are not to everyone's taste, but I'm not sure there's a really satisfactory answer. An article like List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players only contains blue-linked players and we're trying to figure out what to do with players who are not going to be blue-linked. Leaving them as individual articles isn't much help either, because it'll be all the same information but diluted over a huge multitude of articles; and that not only leaves the maintenance problems but also the WP:V trouble that comes with trying to write prose around raw statistics. Maybe you have a better idea. Reyk _YO! 17:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a list with name and dates played for active teams (as the Islamabad United example). For lists that are short or where teams are defunct I could go with name, dates, appearances perhaps - maybe with a notes column if there is anything significant to say. That's more maintainable in my view and wouldn't have to be in a table actually. I'm sure, by the way, that there are candidates on that Hampshire list where one appearance and very little detail exist - just because someone's turned them all into blue links doesn't mean that they are all necessarily notable Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps title something like List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players: A will be better with lesser entries makes it more readable and we will have all these stats as shown by Reyk. Greenbörg (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of which we can get by going to other database sites. Which is really not what this place is about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the developing consensus is that less is more. I'm OK with that. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth starting from a position of less certainly. But I'm willing to be persuaded that it's possible to go further. I'd not rule some more detail out, for sure Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per Lugnuts earlier. EXCEPT that it should be widened in SCOPE and renamed List of first-class cricketers with a single top-class appearance. Make it worldwide, with by country sections, and use the generic "top-class" instead of the specific "first-class" to include List A and T20 once-onlies. Anyone who is in the list with a blue link is fine per WP:CRIN and the redlinks will receive attention in due course. Frankly, as Bobo said above, anyone in breach of guidelines that have been created and maintained by WP:CONSENSUS for a dozen years or more is himself the problem and any member of WP:CRIC who rejects WP:CRIN is in breach of WP:CONSENSUS. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in breach of WP:CONSENSUS, @BlackJack:. Simply in breach of logic. All this nonsense is simple. We've either chosen a guideline and are sticking to it, chosen a guideline and, for the first time after over 10 years are suddenly deciding that the guideline is no longer fit for purpose, with no wish to express an alternate guideline or an alternate purpose which conforms with basic NPOV, or are choosing to keep and delete individual articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Like you say, without the ability to keep a single, comprehensive, neutral list, this list serves no purpose other than to collect together those cricketers who the people who are adding to this list initially decided that the articles in question didn't fit their standards. This lapse in logic makes basic discussion on the matter completely pointless.

Perhaps I would have more respect if these debates had happened ten years ago when these articles were first created. The fact that almost all of the ones which were deleted by PROD had not had their article text even modified in the last ten, twelve years, is, to me, proof that there probably was no problem... Bobo . 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't help but notice that this page has been undergoing a "major reconstructing" for eight days and still nothing has been done. We've (apparently) finally discovered a solution to this basic violation of NPOV, and the people who have decided it should be violated are no longer interested in maintaining their stance by making any effort to expand this article. Which is cute. Bobo . 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Bobo, but unfortunately this isn't the Vulcan WP and they can't breach WP:LOGIC

. They certainly do breach WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and more. Oh, and I've removed that UC template because it isn't. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Logic is the cement of our civilization, with which we ascend from chaos, using reason as our guide." T'Plana-Hath, Matron of Vulcan Philosophy Bobo . 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these articles have been stale for over eight years, I can't understand why you're complaining that "nothing has been done" with this list for eight days. Dee 03 18:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because an "under construction" tag was placed on it for an unacceptable amount of time when it was clearly not "under construction". Seems fairly simple to me. Bobo . 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as I think there is no use of such list and therefore should be deleted. Greenbörg (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "use" of the list is to pacify the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade who begged for articles which meet WP:CRIN to be deleted with no respect for basic guidelines which state that every first-class cricketer is notable. Pathetic, isn't it? Bobo . 17:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRIN, individual first-class cricketers with a single first-class appearance qualify for an article. That seems to be set in stone. Of secondary interest is that nobody is going to be looking for this article, so all this discussion and consensus building is moot. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sadly, the deletion of many articles of players such as Tom Cranston, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and others in recent times proves that while those who care about this project would like it to be so, this is not the case thanks to a group of users who are attempting to argue by other guidelines - which not a single one has explained, defined, justified, or qualified with relation to the criteria we've been working on for the entire history of the project.

As for "nobody looking for the article". the sad fact is that these articles are being sent for deletion up to eight years after they were originally created. How does an article remain eight years on the 'pedia without being deleted unless someone in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade comes along? Seems suspicious that this is happening on such a scale lately... Bobo . 17:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the history. Call out the closing editors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for that, sadly. They're systematically destroying our project by judging by their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria with no respect for the last 13 years and the fact that our criteria have been absolutely fine and remained unchallenged for all that time. Bobo . 17:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move it to the title suggested by Lugnuts/BlackJack. There are far too many articles of cricketers with a single first-class appearance who don't meet GNG and fall into the WP:BLP1E territory. Anybody looking for these one match wonders can be redirected to this list which can provide the same information in a presentable format, instead of making them read those two-liners in standalone articles which are exactly identical to each other except for the name, team and runs scored in their only appearance. Dee 03 18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is kept, it needs to conform to specific, brightline criteria. Don't just add articles to it willy nilly without some kind of logical justification for keeping or removing. Otherwise those who are whining about the brightline criteria we have been using for 12 years or more frankly don't have a leg to stand on and are just using it as an excuse for WP:IDONTLIKEIT logic.

Let's face it, the articles we've see deleted so far, they've not conformed to any sort of inclusion criteria, have they? They've not been suddenly paid attention to by those with no respect for the project, have they? Oh wait.... Bobo . 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Deathlibrarian who, quite succinctly, argues that a list of non notable people is non notable. Ifnord (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just had a random thought. Let's say Tom Cranston (using his name because it is unrelated to this specific AfD) came upon his article and said, "I feel uncomfortable with my biography being on Wikipedia. Please remove it." Something tells me that the people who are voting "delete" on his article would say, "But you have to expect you should have an article on Wikipedia. Why are you trying to hide knowledge of your existence?"

By extension, if we were to know for certain what A. Amaranath's first name was, and if he were to contribute to a similar discussion, would we be saying the same thing? Bobo . 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I frankly find this whole discussion rather confusing, but I do not see a clear consensus to delete at this time. bd2412 T 03:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Jenkins (Painter)[edit]

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

~~Might not be notable.~~ nom withdraw --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 23:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local painter who comes no where near meeting our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as nom) Any comments please, this has been relisted twice. Dysklyver 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been withdrawn by nom: see above. That said, a careful review of the refs shows them to be very minor menitons in insignificant publicaitons. Non notable, so I would vote Delete. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Knuckles (movie)[edit]

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

Unclear notability, created by a blocked SPA with the goal of promoting Kasey Ryne Mazak. Calton | Talk 11:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- won a couple of vanity awards and hyper-localized recognition. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Judging by the coverage on horror-film websites that I wasn't sure were reliable enough to add—they have since been added as external links and removed, see this version—it's become a bit of a cult movie. In addition to the awards listed, I found it won a special effects award at the Austin film festival where it premiered, and I found a report on it in the Austin newspaper and a review on Fangoria, which I think we can use. In addition to the awards and those citations that I added, I don't think we should discount the cult coverage completely in assessing notability, so I believe it squeaks by. By the way, I was not informed by the nominator, and there may well be others with more knowledge of this kind of film who can help find usable sources and assess its notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Fangoria review is an established reliable source for horror films as per WikiProject Film, also Austin Chronicle coverage and some of the reviews listed here although most in the list are unreliable but overall there is enough for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poorly written but does seem like a film that would fit WP:NOTABILITY with the awards won. However, I strongly advise that the article be improved. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:43, 11 October 2017 (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. Generally "lots of hits on a search engines" aren't enough to establish notability or refuting concerns about an article being a dictionary definition. Absent explicit discussion of the concept, it seems like the notability claims carry the day as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racist love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dysklyver 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to be used only by the authors of one study. This term is not notable, and it seems to violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Timeywimeyball (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Racist Love, change the topic slightly from WP:DICTDEF to Chin/Chan's 1972 paper. 3090 Gbooks results is enough to establish notability, looks like the majority of them directly refer to the 1972 paper. Timmyshin (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the questionable assertion that love can be racist, it also seems to violate WP:NPOV. While stereotypes are obviously racist, it may be somewhat similar to Asiaphilia for example. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references to this term, so seems fitting to have a page to explain the concept. Google books gets 3010 hits, not all directly relating to this concept, though many seem to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, referring to a Gbooks search that we have all already looked at is considered a weak argument. The whole point of WP:DICTDEF is we should not have a page to explain the concept unless there is substance to to build an article which is not a simple dictionary definition. - right now that is not the case. Repeated use of the word is not useful for building an article in this situation. Dysklyver 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of scholarly use to show that the term is widely accepted. Beyond this, the article takes a very narrow view of racial interaction, as opposed to a world-wide view that would be required for the study of such idea properly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Geary[edit]

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

As has been said about other articles about minor Godfather characters, this Godfather-cruft. Most of the article is made up of a fictional bio, which is just a repeat of what the film article says. No independent sources showing the character is notable. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into/creating List of The Godfather characters, trimming appropriately per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these are notable characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - In-universe cruft. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. An AfD nom and one !vote to keep, thus "no conensus" close is functionally equivalent to a contested PROD. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ILL Clan[edit]

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

Entirely self-sourced (and dead for that matter), WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a surprising amount of coverage in Wired, Engadget, and even mentions in The NYT, mostly calling the company a pioneer in machinima. I'm inclined to a weak keep. Feel free to peruse some of them yourself: [39]. I might also be open to a redirect/merge of any interesting material to "machinima", which already includes a mention. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, coverage should focus on the subject matter. Those are mainly brief mentions in articles concerning machinima overall. There are two articles that reported a sponsorship partnership and a split and these two probably focus on the group the most. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "weak". --Izno (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 11 October 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge visual networks[edit]

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

Unable to locate sources for company. Tried under "Cambridge Visual Networks" and under "Camvine" without success. Also tried to isolate searches with the name of company directors mentioned in the article and unable to locate anything other than Wikipedia and mirror sites. CNMall41 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 12 October 2017 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park Rx America[edit]

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

Non-notable community health initiative lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. No independent reliable sources provided by author. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Robert. No secondary sources = no article. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 09:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show notability. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 08:32, 18 October 2017 (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 moved to Draft:J. Desai. There is a slim consensus in favor of this article not existing as a separate article, whether it is deleted outright or merged into something else. If sources can be found raising this article to meet the applicable notability criteria, it can be proposed for restoration to mainspace. Alternately, if the proposed list of Gujarat cricketers is created, it can be merged there. Otherwise, it will be deleted as abandoned. bd2412 T 19:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Desai[edit]

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

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced since 2009. It fails WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. I could not find a listing in ESPNcricinfo. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a person whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CRIC and I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet the GNG. The CricInfo profile (here on the same chap adds nothing new and there appears to be no notability beyond having part of his name on one scorecard from the early 70s. I feel it extremely unlikely that suitable sources will be found to show notability at the GNG level. As always I have no prejudice against re-creating if such sources can be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- If one or two scorecards is all we have for a one-appearance player, should I just make a list of the many and do it in one fell swoop? Rhadow (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we can be sure that there are no sources which show that the GNG is met. With modern players that's quite likely. With some historical players it's clear that it could be or is - for example, Francis Marsham is clearly notable and so obviously meets the GNG. I'm not sure what the longer term approach should be - I'd want to be certain that really good source searches had been done on any group submission. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Gujarat cricketers. I'd back the creation of lists covering players for whom only statistical info is available. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has consistently been held that a single appearance at the highest level of a sport is sufficient for WP:N. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is that it is considered to be the case, unless there is evidence to the contrary, for presumed notability to mean the subject is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. In this case, no one has presented any evidence suggesting that the subject is not notable, given that he has played cricket at the highest level and meets WP:CRIN (see WP:NCRIC in WP:NSPORTS). Furthermore, there have been several precedents in which subjects like this one have been kept or where no consensus has been ruled (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination)).

For those with their own interpretation of WP:GNG, the introduction to that guideline states unequivocally: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the WP:NOT policy". "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the listed SSG. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "Only if we can be sure that there are no sources which show that the GNG is met." This is a high bar. It argues implicitly that WP:NODEADLINE supersedes WP:V and WP:GNG. In similar cases, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, for example, the results was no consensus. In Articles for deletion/J. Bandujeewa and Articles for deletion/S. Indika the result was deletion. It was a different case for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination); that article had references. Rhadow (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Here is the proposal we developed for another country: List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers‎ and Talk:List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers‎ -- Waddaya think? Rhadow (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I argue on a different nomination (A. Amaranath), the proposal immediately above is a nonsense: "lesser-known" is completely undefined and probably undefinable. The relevant SNG (WP:NCRIC) has been devised by people who know cricket to set a standard from which it is reasonable to presume notability and coverage. This player meets that standard. The fact that coverage is difficult to find doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Johnlp (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Johnlp -- I seek from you and others a suggest a workable solution, not simply criticism and speculation about my intent. I put my best idea on the table. I am prepared to listen to yours. When these articles were created, there had been twenty years to write about the player on the pitch. It has been another ten years and no one has even discovered what the player's first name is. WP:DEADLINE is not an excuse for never. I guess it's easier to be critical than creative. Rhadow (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give more time for potential sources, which the keep side asserts exist to come out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Create a category – perhaps "Sri Lankan (or Indian or wherever) cricketers with incomplete personal details". Bundle all the names into it, then fire off a note to the Sri Lankan or Indian editors on English WP and the cricket editors on the Gujarati or Sinhalese or Tamil WP directly asking for their assistance. These articles aren't up for deletion because of a lack of notability: the SNG which in this instance has been in place for 10+ years confers a presumption of notability. They're up for deletion because of lack of information/completeness. An encyclopedia is about comprehensive coverage, not about complete knowledge, and will always be a work-in-progress. That's why we work on it. Johnlp (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is something seriously wrong here. People are all too busy crying about how much they hate WP:CRIN, but are entirely unwilling to suggest new, universally-definable inclusion criteria. Until people are able to do that, can I politely suggest that they find somewhere else to whine about the fact that they think cricket biography inclusion criteria is too inclusive when it is the same as every single other competitive team sport on Wikipedia?

The fact that we have proven that the two main general inclusion criteria guidelines here are completely contradictory nonsense is completely by the by. Choose a rule, stick to it, otherwise please don't complain about the rules we've been keeping to for the best part of the last 15 years. Bobo . 14:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in almost every single case so far the question has been more to do with references (particularly WP:ONESOURCE) than it has been to do with any kind of inclusion criteria. The only constructive thing I've learnt from all of these shenanigans is that people take WP:ONESOURCE a lot more seriously than previously. Bobo . 14:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - if articles like this, for which it is insultingly obvious that they meet WP:CRIN, keep getting deleted willy-nilly simply because people don't like them being on the encyclopedia, then what is the incentive for any single person to continue to make articles which meet WP:CRIN when they know they're probably just going to be deleted on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? We, as WP:CRIC members, are trying to build on cricket coverage. Those who wish to delete are, in a grotesquely selective fashion, and with no sense of logic, attempting to destroy it. Let's choose a place for people to discuss whether the bright-line inclusion criteria are satisfactory for purpose, or drop this entire masquerade, which is an insult to over a decade's worth of hard work on people who are, suspiciously, only just discovering these articles after eight years of their presence on WP. Where were these people eight years ago? Bobo . 15:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still doesn't meet the general notability guideline. BLPs can't be left in such a poor state and at this point no appropriate sources can be found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't construe this as badgering but but if "article is in a poor state" is to be considered as a genuine criterion for deletion then all we need to do is pretty up the article a bit. An "appropriate source" is already added. If you would rather this link be in a section named "sources" rather than "external links" please say so - or do it yourself. On another point which I will admit makes me smile, it's strange how articles such as this and the others recently sent for deletion have had no adaptions to the prose portion of the article since I created them eight years ago... as I've said before, where were the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crew hiding eight years ago? Bobo . 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter if they showed up eight years later? What is the point of that remark? I hate to ask but are you sure you should be involved in these discussions Bobo192? With comments like "no sense of logic" and "IDONTLIKEIT crew", you appear to be unwilling to participate with the civility expected of any user, but especially an admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration is, why are people randomly showing up after eight years, in a suspiciously steady stream, when it's insultingly obvious that the subject of the article meets WP:CRIN? Where have they been for the last eight years? If this had been a problem which needed knocking on the head eight years ago, I wouldn't have created hundreds of articles on individuals with a single first-class appearance... Bobo . 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192 I can resolve that rather easily. Look at all the editors' tenures and tell me how many of them have an account that is at least eight years old. If you are suspicious of these editors and have actual evidence to support it, I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum or assume good faith for editors who weren't even here eight years ago to fix the problems they see now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is just a frustration that I have been here for 13 years and am suddenly being told "we run things differently around here" when the articles which are currently being sent for deletion clearly meet WP:CRIN, a guideline which those who have cared about the project for that long have defended to within an inch of our frustrations. We at WP:CRIC are being seen as the "black sheep" when we have been defending these rules for all this time - even though every other team sport runs to the same basic guidelines - and as a member of the project it makes me sad that it has come to this - where people are disagreeing with the guideline and refusing to put forward an alternative solution. Bobo . 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers is part of the way towards a solution but if we have such an article we need bright-line criteria - and the only NPOV bright-line criterion is grouping by team. Bobo . 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of meeting WP:GNG. We are not database site where we should have article on every single cricketer. Greenbörg (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unacceptable as a BLP, due to lack of high quality sources, contravening WP:V. Lack of independent in-depth coverage demonstrates the topic fails GNG and NSPORTS - "Applicable policies and guidelines" and "Basic criteria". Essential biographical material has not been added within an eight year time frame. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a directory or a website for indiscriminate collections of information. Also, Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2017 (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 Handia (drink). – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diyeng[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original research w/ no sources, possibly made-up. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Handia (drink). There are dozens of languages spoken in the area where this drink is made and diyeng is another local name for it. The article creator knows this; he linked to "handia" in a different article. Even the commons description (and name!) of the image he used here is "Tribal woman preparing handia".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Handia (drink). A substantial portion of this page's content was copied from there to begin with; the two appear to be one and the same. The PDF used as a reference doesn't even mention diyeng as a name for the beverage. Relevant Google results using this name appear scarce or nonexistent based on searches for (e.g.) "diyeng" drink, which leads me to doubt the likelihood of someone trying to find it under that name. Commander Spock (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2017 (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 primary keep argument is rooted in the article's pageview statistics, which is not a valid argument for inclusion. A Train^talk 06:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) A Train^talk 06:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature artwork[edit]

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

Signature doesn't have any significance apart from its dictionary definition. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Signature artwork" is the term being discussed, not "signature", and the term has a distinct meaning that is appropriate for discussion in an encyclopedia because it appears frequently in critical and historical discussion of fine and other types of art and artists. I have added a reference to the article that demonstrates a clear association within its definition for signature that lays a foundation for the logic of the term -- exactly as it is used in such discussions, Merriam-Webster Dictionary ^[1] defines the noun precisely using just this relationship, "something (such as a quality or feature) that is closely associated with someone or something" -- our encyclopedia ought to be a resource for educating our readers about terms such as this, found in discussions and descriptions they encounter regarding fine and other types of art and artists. I urge retention of the article to remain among the many articles with which we provide a clear understanding of terms encountered by our readers in other publications and discussions. Note that under the disambiguation page for "signature", several terms of similar distinction exist in diverse fields. This article is equally as relevant and clarifies the reason for the distinctive use of the term. Furthermore, view statistics for the article demonstrate consistent access by our readers to explore the meaning of the term. That is evidence for its usefulness to our readers and further supports retention of the article. This alone should suffice to quell the effort to delete the article, but if not, I would be glad to pursue the discussion further if you like. Please let me know. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signature

I don't know why you chose that funny views format. A more conventional one shows an average 9 views a day. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of Wiktionary, as was pointed out in the second edit to the article and on the article Talk page. There is no need for an article telling us how the English language is used. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using the figure of nine views per day cited by Johnbod, the annual number of views would be 3,285 per year and, therefore, since its start -- approximately 20,000 views of the article have occurred to date. I believe that may be taken as an indicator of its usefulness to our readers. It is a term frequently encountered in discussions of fine art as a concept. Serving our readers is our mission, not debating nuances in art criticism. I find no harm in retaining an article that has been useful to so many readers, little logic in the justifications for the proposed deletion, and no parallel to masterpiece or other terms discussed below as serving adequately to explain the unique concept, signature artwork. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, 83d40m, when you say "the term has a distinct meaning that is appropriate for discussion", it is the "meaning" that might be "appropriate for discussion", not the "term". There are other terms for the phenomenon under consideration. For instance at our Jackson Pollock article we find reference to Pollock's "classic drip-and-splash style". (He also worked in other styles, for which he is not well known.) In that instance the term "classic" is serving a purpose similar to "signature" in "signature artwork". The article "Signature artwork" is not addressing the phenomenon by which some artworks are the ones for which an artist is known. This phenomenon may or may not be a subject worthy of an article. I know of no sources addressing that phenomenon. The important point that I wish to make is that there are no sources in the article addressing this phenomenon. Mere uses of the term (signature artwork) do not constitute an investigation into the phenomenon. The sources provided merely demonstrate that the term is in use in the English language. Why would we need an article documenting the use of the phrase "signature artwork"? Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term relates to the artwork -- a sculpture, a painting, as being able to reveal the artist who created it (without having to see the attribution). _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Masterpiece, for which this is a contemporary American term. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used -- justifying retention -- but it does not mean "masterpiece", nor explain that concept. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Merge I rarely disagree with the knowledgeable Johnbod on anything to do with art, but this doesn't seem to be anything like a synonym for Masterpiece. A signature artwork is, I understand, one that immediately tells the viewer 'this is by Pollock' or whoever. So we see a really colourful stripy painting and we think "Bridget Riley" as plainly as if she'd painted her name in foot-high letters right across it. A masterpiece, on the other hand, is a work acknowledged as demonstrating mastery of a craft. A viewer (not me) might find Riley's work mechanical and in no way masterly, but readily agree it was recognisable. Is the concept notable? It's certainly widely used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a point, although masterpieces are also supposed to embody the artist's personal style. It is probably more appropriate to merge & redirect it to Style_(visual_arts)#Individual_style (a much more highly-viewed article, 325 per day). If kept that should link to here, & vice versa. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. The Style (visual arts) article looks like an ideal target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature artwork may relate to a painting, a sculpture, even to a sonata -- why should it be included in a visual arts discussion? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why does signature refere only to established artist? Can't amateurs have a signature style as well? So many questions that point to this article being essentially Original Research. This is a term/phrase joining two words that are already very adequately described by the dictionary.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. And I agree that the article is original research. A speaker could use the phrase "signature artwork" in any way that they saw fit. I would characterize this article as nailing Jell-O to a wall. Instead of saying as the first sentence says "In art, signature artwork refers to works by popular and well-established artists that are easily recognized as theirs because of unique characteristics in style, medium, or subject matter" we could, with almost as much logic, say "In art, signature artwork refers to works by obscure and lousy artists that are easily recognized as theirs because of unique characteristics in style, medium, or subject matter." The only problem with the second sentence, the one that I am concocting, is that artists early in their careers are less likely to have a style that is uniquely theirs whereas artists later in their careers are more likely have a consistent style—and yes—that style could be called their signature style. But there is no source in the article delving into any such considerations. Sources in the article are merely using the term. This is quite different from assigning any meaning to a term. To give the article the benefit of the doubt it can be logically deduced from the examples given—Pollock, Calder, Dali—that the term is associated with artists that are "popular and well-established". But to assert that deduction would be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't make an assertion about the meaning of a phrase, such as "signature artwork", based on anecdotal evidence of how it is used. Dictionaries have more latitude in this regard because dictionaries are deducing meaning from how a term is used. This article is telling us stuff about "signature artworks" that simply is not supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge It's a simple adjective+noun description, synonymous with "typical work", closely related to "mature work", and usually contrasted with "student work" or "atypical work". Do any of these terms really merit an article? Ewulp (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is anything to merge. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be optomistic, it would be a signature merger. And I say that with my signature sense of humour, while reclining in my signature style. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention that I do have a particular way of signing my name-- you could call it my signature signature. I think it merits an article. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure a merger would be inappropriate -- and call out the unidentified ridicule as irrelevant to a discussion by users regarding a vote for deletion -- a signature artwork is a single work, not a category. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfD decisions are based on facts, not opinions. The outcomes here are basically either merge, redirecting to Style (visual arts)#Individual style, as Johnbod suggests (and I'm happy with), or delete. Bullying is always and everywhere inappropriate, but that has nothing to do with the facts of this AfD, which hinge on the lack of suitable sources, and the simple fact that it's basically just a WP:FORK (a duplicate article) of Individual style as in the article I've linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit of the article incorporating changes addressing some of the points made here by editors -- that may resolve some issues. Are there any additional changes that might clarify better? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the 20,000 views of the article remain significant to me for usefulness. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is, I'm afraid, a classic non-argument: a duplicate (FORK) should be merged so there is one really useful article, not two half-useful ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I have violated protocols I am not familiar with, Bus stop, I'm not used to these projects. Although I believe there is justification for the article, I'd be glad to collaborate on a merge, but it ought to cover more than "visual" arts (the meaning of which remains a mystery to me, having never met an artist who defines himself as such) and the article ought to include all of the fine arts such as sculpture -- for instance. An artist's "style" is not the same as a work itself that demonstrates it so clearly that no signature is needed, that is what a signature artwork is. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

83d40m—I complained to you on your Talk page about your placement of your !vote. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just inspected the sources cited in the Signature artwork article and as far as I can tell not one of them even uses the term, although various "signature" things are mentioned: "signature style", "signature works", "signature colors", "signature paintings", and "signature mustache", as well as related terms such as "personal style" and "iconic paintings". None of these seem good subjects for Wikipedia articles. This ngram shows no results at all for "signature artwork" (just for comparison, "serious painting" appears steadily throughout the 20th century). Ewulp (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to describe something that is distinctive to the study of art. Having a signature style seems more a quality of authorship in general, whether of painting, poetry, cooking, assembling outfits, etc. The referenced writers are using "signature" to telegraph that many other works by the same artist resemble one being described. That does not seem to be a mode of analysis (as the article implies, and which might make it encyclopedic) as much as a way of helping a reader understand that what's being discussed relates to the artist's work in general and not just the work in question.KR26740 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think another related article, aside from Style (visual arts), is Connoisseurship, but I don't think there is anything to wp:merge into those articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (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.