< 3 August	5 August >

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. Despite the ~~strong whiff of undisclosed~~ paid COI editing and the participation of two article contributors with only a handful of edits, who nevertheless seem to be very familiar with our policies, there appears to be a consensus to keep this article. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appian Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article subject does seems to not have a claim to significance, and the coverage of the company is lacking in depth. The sources that do cover the company are by-and-large product reviews or standard business announcements, both of which type of sources do not meet the strengthened NCORP guideline. Furthermore, the company should not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) coverage of projects Appian has participated in. The article also does not make the case for why Appian is unique or significant when judged against other, more notable cloud computing companies, which brings up WP:MILL for consideration. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author Response[edit]

Edited addressing Nosebagbear's feedback (thanks)

I believe article meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. I would also like to mention that I don't not think this AfD was properly tagged per the pre-checks set in WP:BEFORE and purpose in WP:INTROTODELETE. If my concerns are unfounded, please let me know. For some additional context, I had a talk with CNMall41 about the issue on notability & significance in a previously rejected submission for this article. From that discussion, I was led to believe that not every citation need meet every criteria specified in WP:ORGCRITE, just enough (i.e. multiple sources). Can someone confirm that not every citation need to meet notability requirements?

The following citations meet WP:SIGCOV & WP:CORPDEPTH requirements:

The Washington Post article covers Appian significantly, referencing the company over 40 times and devote an entire sub-section of the company.
The Wired article focuses on Army Knowledge Online, which is a product developed by Appian (If the concern here is WP:INHERITORG, I don't think it applies, because, is the developer of the product. This system was never acquired by Appian (more on this later)). There are also multiple references to Appian as a company and interviews of employees of that company.
The PC Mag article The article in an in depth review of the is primarily about Appian and a feature of the product.
The industry analyst reports could also be considered as significant coverage - 1, 2, 3. They are independent reliable, and secondary. The only issue with proving significant coverage is that the report is behind a paywall. This should not exclude these as viable references, however. The report does provide significant coverage. You may try to obtain one by contacting any of the companies listed in the report. They may be able to give you a copy of the analysis. More to this point, I would argue that these are excellent sources of notability because in order to even be considered in industry analysis, you have to be a significant contributor in this market segment. Gartner specifies vendor inclusion criteria on its site. These requirements are set by the Analyst organization. Companies have no say in this criteria. I feel that this characteristic makes these reports and excellent resource for independent notoriety.

There was concern regarding product reviews and business announcements. The PC Mag article. I believe the author of the PC mag article independently reviewed the product, talks about other products out there in the market, and expands the article to a broader discussion about the differences between no-code and low code. I feel like this satisfies the requirement of significance for product reviews, as the author was under no obligation to write the review as it was presented about the company.

Regarding standard business announcements, I think the issue might be in the Washington Post article regarding funding capital. I was a little hesitant to include this, but decided that the article was not a standard PR news wire source. A lay person may not see the difference or car, but there are people in financial & business circles who understand this information and would learn something from knowing that Appian spent 2 years between this series funding and IPO.

In this article there are no references to projects that Appian as participated in. There are some citations (Wired and PC Mag) that describe Appian's product, but this is something that was created by Appian. I'd hate to speculate about this but it seems like software creation is not given the same treatment as a tangible creation, like a piece of art or novel, etc... Using this logic, JD Salinger could WP:NOTINHERITED the significance of Catcher in the Rye, and would have to be notable by the minor other works he did. If the issue is the fact that Appian was commissioned to make Army Knowledge Online, then Michelangelo could [[WP:NOTINHERITED] significance from the Sistine Chapel ceiling (it was one of his defining works). Can WP:NOTINHERITED be applied to the creator of the notable source?

I don't think WP:MILL can be considered as a reason for AfD. The industry analyst reports- 1, 2, 3 contradict this claim. WP:MILL have a similar consideration when evaluating companies to put in their reports. I've tried to address all concerns. However, Please let me know if you need any other clarification.

AfD Label Concern

Now regarding my other concern about this AfD submission, would you be able to help me understand why this was marked as an Afd, and not something like WP:CLEAN and WP:PNA. AfD is supposed to be used for only four things: Neutral point of view, verifiability, Original research, or non-encyclopedic? The comments make it sound like the issue was verifiability, but I'm not sure. If it is, I've tried to address those concerns.

However, before AfD was used, were the WP:BEFORE checks followed? The AfD was submitted about 4 hours after article approval/creation. Section C of WP:BEFORE says, consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted and that if the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. Also, it's recommended, if an article has issues, try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page. I didn't see this action taken.

I apologize if I'm sounding like a jerk, I'm not trying to be. I want to understand how the decision to tag as AfD came about and whether WP:CLEAN and WP:PNA were considered?

If you were to ask me if this is a great Wikipedia article, I would definitely say no. But isn't it the purpose of WP:CLEAN to fix up bad articles? The AfD page suggests this as well.

Please let me know if you need any clarification. Thanks! Jonkatora (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to @Jonkatora: - it might be worth having a look at some other AfDs (especially on companies) to see how to make a good justification, of which one aspect is: brevity isn't necessary, but essays are counter-productive at convincing others, additionally you don't need both "big" tags and bolding. More importantly, challenges on allow clean-up etc are generally not suited to notability nominations, where clean-up shouldn't actually matter, so long as the Nom (and any !voting editor) do their own WP:BEFORE checks to find sources outside the article - if clean-up in an aspect is impossible then it shouldn't be enabled. Recent is usually intended to apply on 1/2 hours scale, more relevantly, it doesn't really apply to AfC-authorised drafts, since it has already had time. Nosebagbear (talk)

@Nosebagbear: Thanks for the help and feedback. I've tried to cleanup my original response based on your feedback. Regarding your comments on WP:BEFORE and clean-up, I can't really find any of your responses in Wiki guidelines. Are these community best practices? If so, how are newbs supposed to get this information if they are not in the guidelines? Thanks. Jonkatora (talk)

Industry reports are an interesting source issue (one that is frequently "re-litigated") as they have a vested interest in reporting on companies, usually in a positive sense. It is probably worth specifically discussing what makes these ones reliable in terms of neutrality, fact-checking etc. It might be a little odd for someone on "the same side" to point out potential issues, but articles (especially corporations) need to be well justified to remain - I appreciate it's unreasonably hard for editors whose first contact with AfD is defending an article they are the primary editor on. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there definitely is a pressure for industry reports to have a positive spin (they get paid when companies are able to share the report to prospective customers). If someone was trying to quote something said in an industry report, I would not consider that information as un-biased. However, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use industry reports to qualify that a company is operating in a certain industry (which is how I used these references). While the authoring of industry content could be considered bias, the selection of which companies are included in the report is independent and objective. A company can't game inclusion into an analyst report if the requirements for include include 10 $1 million sales in a calendar year. Jonkatora (talk)

Keep (Somewhat shorter reasoning) - This was a somewhat marginal case (hence the talk post). I believe notability is best demonstrated by these three summaries: Wired talking about Army Portal; WashingtonPost on alternative to Silicon Valley, using Appian as an example; PCMag on what they do (Little less trustworthy via some Appian involvement). Two of these sources are product-based articles but they cover the parent company in good detail, so I don't believe inherited applies. The sources were narrowed to satisfy NCORP. Regarding the use of WP:MILL I'd first say that it doesn't apply, since it's designed to apply to things where there are countless equivalents - more importantly it is an essay on notability and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is more relevant, where other companies existing or not existing is irrelevant to Appian being notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure that I am the AfC Reviewer, so obviously some inherent desire to keep, but I feel I have a suitable explanation)

Weak Keep. or at least redirect to Army Knowledge Online, which was notable. The quality of PC mag reviewa vary, but this one seems acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Jonkatora: Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, there are fourteen reasons for putting an article up at AfD, not just four. In my experience, the most common is #8, lack of notability, which is what is alleged here. The relevant guideline here is WP:NCORP, one of the most difficult to parse. I am in agreement with DGG and Nosebagbear in that I think it squeaks through. Tech companies are notorious for appearing in the night like mushrooms and disappearing after a short time, but articles may still benefit the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Ethan Warren[edit]

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

Non-notable character that fails GNG. Only appeared in three issues. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It has been suggested that this be merged to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. I do believe the merge is the best spot for this character although I wouldn't oppose a full deletion. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the precedent that this would set (merging onto a list despite only three appearances) would push the list in the direction of being indiscriminate. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a straightforward failure of WP:GNG, with the only mainspace link to this page coming from the list page. There is no reason to keep this info anywhere. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Killer Moff and nom. This character is barely a footnote within the fiction and nothing would be lost if this were deleted. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The obvious redirect target is actually Logan (comics), with an expansion of that article's plot section, however it is questionable whether this title needs to be kept. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lauzon[edit]

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

Teenage amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:TOOSOON, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NHOCKEY test is not passed just because a player was selected in the NHL entry draft — it requires getting onto the ice in at least one NHL-level game, which as of today Jeremy Lauzon has not. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature annoying article creation that ends up making a mess of the world junior pages. Likely will get to the point of being notable, but for now does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.Flibirigit (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable enough, the article fails to pass WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY at the moment. Dial911 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Studnicka[edit]

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

Teenage amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:TOOSOON, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NHOCKEY test is not passed just because a player was selected in the NHL entry draft — it requires getting onto the ice in at least one NHL-level game, which as of today Jack Studnicka has not. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is lots of routine coverage available, but nothing I found helps with GNG.18abruce (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.Flibirigit (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable enough, the article fails to pass WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY at the moment. Dial911 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vladař[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, doesn't the fact that he has represented the Czech Republic internationally make him notable? Jdcooper (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: No. The only presumptive pass NHOCKEY gives him is if he's played internationally at the senior World Championships in the top pool, or of course if he's played in the Olympics. He's done neither; if you look closely, he's only represented the Czech Republic in youth tournaments. Ravenswing 15:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable enough, the article fails to pass WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails as per GNG and NHOCKEY. User has created many such articles that are now at AfD. I hope he/she would learn about GNG policy now. Dial911 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Andersson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Teenage amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor who's created several such articles on Boston Bruins' prospects, most of which are also at AfD. Ravenswing 23:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our over broad inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable enough, the article fails to pass WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy no consensus. Look at the votes: there is NO WAY this is ever going to close as 'delete, and we are better off spending our energy elsewhere--just as closing this will be one less time sink for administrators, this AfD and its talk page apparently being a magnet for BLP violators. So I'll be diplomatic and say "No consensus", rather than the likely keep which I think most seasoned editors see here, judging by the comments. If you want to nominate this again, that's fine--but patience is a virtue. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong[edit]

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

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

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

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

It's unclear to me how this stub BLP existed before a few days ago since this is how it looked. If you follow the news, then you know why this article has received attention in the past few days. Since then, every agenda-pushing person has come to the talkpage to push their own point of view there. The article was fully locked and since then, interminable discussions have ensued on the talk page, with seeming nothing getting done. This person, according to WP:BLP1E should not have an article, especially since in this particular case, the 1E part is carefully left out of the article. At best, Wikipedia looks like it implies that this is notable enough to deserve an article but completely ignores the main point why anybody has heard of this person. There are already articles where a LP has said far less that this person and Wikipedia implies those people are nutjobs, while here, it pretends this person is an upstanding citizen. Since some people think the article should be frozen for two weeks, it seems like nuking/drafting it, then coming back in two weeks will at least not give the impression that Wikipedia sides with the side that thinks "nothing happened and everything should be swept under the rug". Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:GNG clearly. Your bias against her is not a reason to delete her article. You can't delete any article you don't like. JC7V-constructive zone 22:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's Wikipedia's bias against/for people with certain opinions. This joke of a stub that does not pass BLP1E, together with the drama on the talkpage blatantly enforces that bias. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She gets enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. She is mentioned by many different outlets and she has a hook to her. Article length is no reason to delete as many articles that meet WP:GNG are way shorter than this article. JC7V-constructive zone 22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is bad and you should feel bad. A clearly retaliatory AFD with specious reasoning. A member of the editorial board of the paper of record of the United States with a long history of previous journalism should not have an article? If you are not serious, you should be topic banned for trolling, if you are, you should be banned per WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just undermined yourself. Almost none of the members of the NYT editorial board have Wiki pages - despite almost all of them being far more prominent and experienced journalists than Sarah Jeong. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

((sofixit)) Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Speedy keep, even. She clearly meets notability requirements, and talk page drama is not a reason to delete an article. This AFD feels pretty disingenuous, to be honest. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does she "clearly meet notability requirements"? The only thing notable about her is the tweets. Should we have a BLP for everyone whose controversial tweets make the news? (that's, like, dozens of people every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - See the article Talk page, where many editors have make the case for deletion. There is no longstanding coverage of this individual in reliable, mainstream, secondary sources. Clear case of recentism. Wikipedia is not a news site. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BLP1E. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites passing mentions and non-independent sources as references. All of the recent news coverage concerns the Twitter incident instead of Jeong herself. (Note that Jeong is affiliated with The Verge (Vox Media), The New York Times, and Vice, so coverage from these sources after her employment are not considered independent.) — Newslinger talk 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources from the January 9 revision, before Twitter incident, don't meet WP:GNG (which requires at least 2 reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of Jeong):
  1. Forbes: Not significant coverage. A directory listing mentioning Jeong's Forbes 30 Under 30 listing. Unfortunately, since there are 600 people on the list each year, this isn't a strong enough claim to notability.
  2. Vox Media: Not independent. Parent company of Jeong's employer.
  3. Wired: Not significant. A tweet from Jeong is used as an example, but the article doesn't cover Jeong herself.
  4. The Toast: ~~Not reliable. Satirical site (see The Toast).~~ Not independent or significant. Interview with Jeong that only discusses her book.
  5. Above the Law: Not significant. A link to one of Jeong's tweets.
  6. The Guardian: Not significant or independent. Listing of Jeong's articles.
  7. YaleNews: Not independent. Announcement for Jeong's speaking at the university.
  8. The New York Times: Not independent. Written by Jeong.
  9. Parker Higgins: Not independent. Promotional post for Jeong's newsletter.
  10. TinyLetter: Not independent. Jeong's newsletter.
  11. Ars Technica: Not significant. Quotes article written by Jeong, but no coverage on Jeong herself.
  12. Harvard: Not independent or significant. Listing for Jeong's event.
  13. The Toast: Duplicate. See #4.
  14. The Mary Sue: ~~Not reliable. Blog post.~~ Not significant. Covers The Internet of Garbage, not Jeong herself.
  15. Forbes: Not significant coverage. Not an indicator of notability. See #1.

It's incredibly difficult to find additional sources among the deluge of news coverage for the recent Twitter incident, but the sources from before are insufficient. I stand by my delete !vote until this Twitter incident is notable enough to have an article, or until Jeong achieves notability by some other means. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing off The Mary Sue as a "blog post" seems a misunderstanding of the concerns about blogs. It's not a self-published source. The Mary Sue is an online publication that gets some reasonable degree of attention, and has an editorial board. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I've reread the page and amended the evaluation. — Newslinger talk 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your restatement, it still seems to miss the truth. The Mary Sue review goes well beyond just talking about the content of the book; it repeatedly is discussed as part of a larger picture of Jeong's efforts, citing her statements in an interview, and her engagement with an outside campaign. It discusses the book in the context of discussing Jeong and her views as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the page one more time, and don't think this counts as significant coverage. There is one sentence mentioning and linking to a petition that Jeong signed, and it's mentioned to give context to a quotation from the book. — Newslinger talk 16:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, writing off The Toast as a satiric site misses the mark. Did it include satire? Sure... as does The New Yorker, as does every paper that ever ran Erma Bombeck, Dave Barry, or "Doonesbury". But that is not all that it was. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reread and amended. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong may not be "independent" enough for her own statements to be taken as flat fact in anything that would aggrandize, but I see no way in which The Toast is not independent, and their decision to interview Jeong should not be considered an indication of her import. Do we write off CBS News on the basis of not being "independent" of anyone they interview? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Interviews, a publication's decision to interview a particular person can be taken as evidence that the person is noteworthy, even if the subject's statements about themselves are primary sources. (Did you mean "should not be" or "should be"?) XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no way in which"..."should not be". I fly the double-negative like a professional writifier, authing like only a real auther can! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but only in this case. Please see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. The vast majority of the article is Jeong's responses, and those portions of the article (75%) are a primary source. Take away the responses, and there is no significant coverage from independent sources, which is required by WP:GNG. The interview is about her book, not herself. (Additionally, WP:GNG requires multiple sources to establish Jeong's notability, not just one.) Amended. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the Harvard source provides a short bio, which should qualify as significant, unless you're setting standards very high. In any case, I don't think these shortcomings justify deletion. I'm sure sourcing could've been improved, although current events will make it much more difficult to find pre-controversy sources. As I said in my vote, this seems like a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a listing for her event, so the source wouldn't be independent, either. Amended. This isn't the first controversial WP:BLP1E discussion, though this is certainly one of the more heated ones. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IP, we're allowed to use non-independent sources, as long as we clearly indicate the connection. Of course independent sources are needed, but I still say this is excessively critical. Xcalibur (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can use those sources in the article. However, WP:GNG is quite strict in requiring multiple sources that are independent (among other requirements) to establish notability in an AfD discussion. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be shortcomings in the several sources provided, but I insist that deletion is not an ideal solution, per WP:Overzealous deletion. An even more important consideration is the possibility that, given the timing of this AfD, it is intended as partisan obstruction, which would be WP:Tendentious editing and WP:GAME. I think that concern outweighs your criticism of sources, especially since sourcing can be improved. Xcalibur (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines like WP:GNG are designed to prevent partisan obstruction, because they apply equally to all article subjects regardless of their political positions or affiliations. If you produce at least 2 sources showing that Jeong meets WP:GNG, then Jeong qualifies for an article. — Newslinger talk 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, current events will make it considerably more difficult to search for sources not related to the controversy. I also think your standards for significant coverage are too exacting. Xcalibur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this page view analysis for context. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you scale it big enough, the earlier dates look like zero. But they weren't. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm showing that Jeong's notability comes from only one event, as described in WP:BIO1E. I'm also showing the spike in talk page traffic after The Daily Caller reported on this Wikipedia article itself, to give other editors context on why this discussion is so heated. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm showing that you're wrong, and that while there has certainly been a spike in the wake of The Daily Caller, the page was regularly visited before that; more visited than many other articles that have survived AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats aren't used by themselves to establish or counter an article subject's notability. I'm highlighting the change before and after August 2 (<100 vs 40,000-50,000), and offering context to other editors, not making an argument solely from the pageviews. For my actual argument, please defer to the notability of the cited sources above. — Newslinger talk 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeong was a recognized author well before this most recent dust-up, so BLP1E is irrelevant. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, she wasn't. You can't even buy her ebook. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The availability of the book now is not pertinent to how it was received then. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it wasn't reviewed then either! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Mainstream, reliable, notable sources remember. Not whatever random website pops up when you Google the title. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ZinedineZidane98 has been blocked for one month due to persistent disruptive editing. The article on The Internet of Garbage has been expanded with academic references since its AfD nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for uninvolved parties. This is an extremely active page (1500 talk page edits in 4 days) that is currently in the news and related to the gamergate controversy. Outside sources with significant followings are are directing people to the article/talk page.Citing (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources and hardly a low-profile individual, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lead-writer for the NYT? Passes WP:NJOURNALIST: The person is regarded as an important figure, clearly, or she wouldn't have been hired. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep, in fact. Why would anybody want to delete this WP:NOTABLE article? That would be just plain ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepity Keep Keep - the coverage of her works and the Forbes Top 30 Under 30 would've kept this page around had it been nominated a month ago. The current attention certainly does not remove notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This appears to be a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. WP:GNG is satisfied here. There are adequate WP:RS for the old article, and more RS covering the recent incident, this is enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The BLP1E restriction doesn't apply, because the original article is already acceptable, and the twitter controversy is ongoing -- this may be only the beginning of an entire arc of events, it is too soon to judge. Furthermore, the individual and the controversy are closely related, it would be easiest to document the controversy on the existing article. If we choose not to document it, the existing article can stay, there is no need to delete the whole thing (talk page drama is not a reason to delete, that can be moderated in and of itself). Finally, I have serious concerns about the motivations of this request for deletion -- I notice that the article was allowed to stand until the recent controversy, after which a request for deletion was put in almost immediately after. This gives the appearance of a partisan maneuver designed to obstruct coverage of the recent controversy -- if so, this would be WP:Tendentious editing. Controversies often elicit strong reactions, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is yet another reason to Keep. Xcalibur (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you and many others are mistaken. The original article was a prime candidate for AfD... no one bothered because no one knew about it. The article received no traffic, no edits, because the subject was not mentioned in any prominent sources. She is only notable because of the Twitter controversy - which means, she is not notable at all (unless of course we were to include every person involved in a twitter debacle that reaches the news.... which would necessitate dozens of new articles every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes 30 under 30, Wired, The Guardian, Yale.edu, Harvard.edu, The New York Times, and more, all before the controversy. The earlier sources may not be perfect, but they should be enough for WP:GNG. The controversy itself has received much greater coverage in RS than the average "twitter debacle". Again, I must cite WP:Overzealous deletion, particularly the points on Personal Taste, Obscurity, Lack of Familiarity, and "When in Doubt, Don't Delete". A relative lack of article activity is not a reason to delete, and that problem at least has been solved. You also haven't addressed the possibility that this is WP:Tendentious editing and an example of WP:GAME, which is even more reason to Keep if true. Xcalibur (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search prior to 2018 shows plenty of articles that are more than just name dropping about her. It could have been expanded more but we can't force editors to do that, there was enough to justify keeping it. These most recent incident probably only helps to expand her past history more even if none of the tweets or other statements related to the controversy are even brought up. --Masem (t) 15:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Then surely you could link some of these articles about her.... (from mainstream RS remember, not blogs or fringe websites) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST, but satisfies WP:BLP1E. For example, the "30 under 30" mention from Forbes is a fairly trivial mention. Any stories from before 2018 as Masem notes above are related to the 1E in question; it's simply that they've received renewed attention in recent days (WP:NOTNEWS also comes into play here). Any notability Jeong has is simply due to the controversy she caused with some public statements. That's not enough to sustain an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see many pre-2018 sources discussing her as a tech writer, and discussing her in context of "The Internet of Garbage". Yes, there are a few sources with questionable independence (anything from Vox for example). Also, in bringing up BLP1E, we have to recognize she was the target of some previous harassment by Sanders supports in 2016, [1], that with this additional case, 1E doesn't apply anymore. --Masem (t) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's funny is that, had anyone found it before, the article would have gone straight into AfD because of WP:NOTPLUG. The "sources" were college posts and a book that no one reviewed. Now that it is WP:BLP1E due to the NYT hiring someone that NY Mag posits "Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?"^[1], the actual event is the hiring of such a person to the Editorial Board of what has heretofore been known as "the newspaper of record" of the United States. And you see, this is the event. This is the issue. Not a minor WP:BLP1E individual, little known before. Of course, now there are sources worldwide from where you can gather age, academic career, etc., but that's precisely what WP:BLP1E was designed to prevent! So delete the bio already and let's have an article about the controversy. XavierItzm (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ Andrew Sullivan (3 August 2018). "When Racism Is Fit to Print". New York. Retrieved 6 August 2018. Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist? From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is.

Delete per WP:BLP1E, or move to Sarah Jeong controversy and focus on the actual event that led to her being covered in the press. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NAUTHOR; only the commotion caused by the revelation of her old tweets is notable. Of course, if we followed the Trump standard, the appropriate article name would be Racial views of Sarah Jeong, so that our beloved encyclopedia would finally have TWO people with an article dedicated to their "racial views". Not saying that I would support that either… Goose, meet gander. — JFG ^talk 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Arguing using WP:BLP1E does not make sense as the guideline is primarily about someone associated with an event but would otherwise likely remain a low-profile individual, and there is no indication this would be the case here. The event in any case is about her, it is her involvement that is notable. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her role at the Times alone makes her notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's (Redacted) but now notable.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or, as alternative, move to Sarah Jeong controversy as editor JFG suggests. Scaleshombre (talk)

Keep. Plenty of coverage per WP:GNG, and the BLP1E arguments above are unconvincing. This seems like a spite AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Nuke Delete: Not notable. There are two related instances of sensationalised fame. Who is this lady? A journalist among 32,000 in the US and multiple hundreds of thousands in the world. (Redacted) However, concerning this subject we have to battle over whitewashing sourced content to make it look better when the "claim to fame" is the tweets. Without the tweets what is she notable for? What national journalistics award does she claim? If there are claims it is as a "senior staff writer" then that is premature as too soon and I can argue that "just that alone" is not really notable. Because there is some sourcing out there does not mean Wikipedia "MUST" have an article on it. Especially of a non-notable journalist some hope will be someone. Maybe any news is good news because Wikipedia is being painted as supporting this: ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE. Some are there (now maybe) but watered down. Otr500 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly the first time that what is or is not included in a Wikipedia article has been reported upon. Whether or not to include the tweets in the article is absolutely a conversation we should be having, but what The Daily Caller thinks about it is irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about what The Daily Caller's headlines are, I wonder what they would be if we delete this page.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage, this nom just serves to prove the things that she described in her book - some people in our society just want to purge all mentions of female heroines from the Internet. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? How does her notability or lack thereof have anything to do with her gender??? And which source called her a "female heroine"??? — JFG ^talk 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna say it out loud because I don't want to offend anyone, but do you really think everyone in the world is compeltely impartial to ones gender? As for the second question, I wasn't referring to any source. I call her that. And many other people too. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Openlydialectic. However this user as a right of opinion, and I feel if JFG wants to open that discussion, JFG should go to that talk page and start a discussion. My comment was asked to be redacted for posting the opposite. I feel this is unfair because I didn't post anything hyperbolic like the person above us. JFG does have a decent question and you should be able to use a source or explain your personal logic NOT pointing out what others do. JFG you should go to the user page and start a conversation with, if not asked the comment to be redacted.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted for what? Are you delusional? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Masem --S Philbrick (Talk) 17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG although the tweet situation is controversial but has had notable coverage her other work as an author/writer, and appointment to the NYT editorial board are independent qualifications for notability. Phil (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep known for more than this one event:journalism and her book; per Masem Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, being known for something isn't the same thing as meeting GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She obviously meets GNG including the coverage of the twitter controversy and BLP1E doesn't apply because "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."; they don't, there are sources covering her well before (even if they may not by themselves meet GNG) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. This AfD seems clearly biased and perhaps politically motivated. Proserpine (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some editors above complain about the massive attention the article has gotten, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately, the article has itself become a flash point in the news for alleged censorship of Wikipedia, as some editors are working to censor embarrassing material off the page, such as directly quoting the tweets. As painful as it may be, keeping all such reliably sourced, notable material is healthier in the long run. Don't delete or censor this article in a way that gives an appearance of favoring the political left. WP really should be apolitical, though it's pretty obvious that individual editors are not. Wookian (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Xcalibur (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because this article seems to be discrete. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Just some recent "news" stories about her, mostly on "social media". Not relevant in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.68.55 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, and I wouldn't mind deleting all of the single-purpose accounts that have been showing up in order to treat Wikipedia as though it were Twitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this person has heavy media coverage from major and reliable sources and is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sumrall[edit]

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

This has not been examined since a speedy was declined in 2009; it seems to fall under ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the sources to establish notability all point to a single event. I could not find anything recent. 198.58.175.190 (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It passes GNG as per me. However, assuming notability on the basis of one event would violate BLP1E. I searched for some sources (news) later than the incident date but could not find anything online that old. If the subject would have been talked about in media long after he was rescued, I would have supported it. Dial911 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Howard Buffett. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Stahl Buffett[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is having been the wife and mother of other people. As always, notability is not inherited -- if a person does not have standalone notability in her own right for her own career accomplishments, then she does not get an article just to help fill out the genealogies of her notable relatives. And the sources here are not about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG, either -- two of the three are glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of her son, and the third is a user-generated family tree on a genealogy site, none of which are notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ABC News [2] reports that she was an emotionally abuse mother, although post-partum depression and its consequences may have been a factor. The article is about her daughter's book, but discusses Leila extensively. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get Wikipedia articles just because they can technically be referenced to their notable children's autobiographies. Those are directly affiliated sources, not independent ones, for the purposes of making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article — they could be used for some supplementary verification of facts after WP:GNG had already been met by stronger sources, but are not bringers of GNG in their own right if they are the strongest sources on offer. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:. The book about the daughter is not an autobiography. Zitz, Michael (2010). Giving it all away : the Doris Buffett story. Sag Harbor, NY: Permanent Press. ISBN 9781579622091. OCLC 542263588. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biographies of Warren Buffett (not currently used as references) talk about his mother, but I see no sign of other sources. There's no claim of importance or significance (apart from familial relations). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could be enhanced using this and similar sources.--Ipigott (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was dormant in a skeleton condition but not submitted for deletion. The article has been enhanced with details and references recently. I am in the process of searching for additional details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWP13 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Although a stub, surely the article will grow with contribution and more research. If guidelines about notability does not lend itself to include an article about the mother of some very notable children, then surely exceptions can be made in this case due to her bloodline and the immense curriosity people all over the world have of the subject. Surely 'public curiosity' of a subject should be reason enough to be included in an encyclopedia even though the person might not have done anything notable herself. Some things are notable enough by just by 'being in existance', a natually formed monument for example. The subject has historic significance.

--Tabletop123 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of now, I'm afraid the article doesn't pass the notability threshold for me. Too much of it is about her family, not enough about her personally. I'd be happy to revisit the issue if it's fleshed out further, but for now I think it's better as a redirect. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability beyond familial. Tacyarg (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think there are good enough reasons (public curiosity levels etc) for WP:IAR to overrule WP:FAMILYBIO. The coverage received in the course of biographies etc of her children don't seem to provide sufficient coverage of her to warrant inclusion. Per the suggestion in WP:INVALIDBIO I'd suggest a redirect, for now, to Howard Homan Buffett. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass notability test, the article seems to be all about her family. Notability isn't inherited from the spouse. Not sure what is added with the claims she was an abusive mother. W C M_email 12:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lelia Goldoni[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 03:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article on a living person that has no reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source and has even been know to include articles on fictitious people made up to create publicity for films. Not that I am saying Goldoni is fictitious, but I am saying we lack any reliable sources on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a couple of book sources added, though still needs better sourcing. PamD 13:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found more sources and added them. I'm not going to have time to do more at the moment. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC CoriD 13:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow both consideration of added sources as well as specific consideration of if specific criteria of WP:NACTOR has been satisfied
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject's career is definitely uneven, and many of the credits are not helpful for establishing notability, but subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 with significant roles in multiple notable films. Roles are verifiable in academic and reference books on cinema, as a Google Books search confirms. Bakazaka (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bakazaka/WP:NACTOR based on new sources added. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 01:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been much improved by Megalibrarygirl and seems to meet WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY, clearly passes WP:NACTOR now Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NACTOR and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Drafts are discussed at WP:MfD; I'll delete it under G7, though. ansh 666 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yan Dhanda[edit]

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

Article was created today, the content here is contained in the actual article. Iggy (Swan) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Quite evidently we have a lot of opposing opinions. Much of the argument is that she is inherently notable but I see this linked to opinion not a guideline or policy. To my mind this argument is not policy based and does not count strongly against gng related arguments to delete. Claims of adequate sourcing have been well refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Tanaka[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thoroughly unencyclopedic "article" on a woman whose only claim to fame is that she currently is the oldest living person. Age in and of itself is not a reason for notability. The only things we can say about her life are birth- and death-dates and -places and the "fact" that she "credits family, sleep and hope for her longevity." At best, this could be a redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. A WP:BOLD redirect was reverted saying that I should wait until she dies. Note that in the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako I was attacked for just doing that, so this seems to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. No in-depth sources, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the nom: Of course, WP:ONEVENT/WP:BLP1E also very much applies here. Yes, I know, there's probably local coverage for every birthday she's had since she turned 100, but that's all part of the same WP:ROUTINE coverage of the same event (namely that she's getting really old). --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Chiyo Miyako was merged, but this article should be kept until either she dies or GWR and/or GRG validates someone older. This is a useful article. Georgia guy (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its useful to know how she occupies her time by playing board games, and taking short walks in the nursing home's hallways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako was not merged. An attempt to merge it was deleted. There is no trace of the notable information sourced to reliable sources that previously lived in the deleted article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AFD was delete, not merge. Not sure why the entire thing was merged since that looks like is avoids the AFD result. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel like the requirements for people to have Wikipedia articles have gotten stricter and stricter over the past few years. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the oldest living person is worth including the article. Of course it will be appreciated if the article will be improved, but consider that she has the title of the oldest living persons just since a few days. Jansan (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we perhaps forget about WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments this time around? And expecting that more in-depth sources will become available in the future is uncertain at best. Please present arguments solidly based on policy or guidelines. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way I view the "I like it" argument, the whole existence of Wikipedia is naturally an "I like it" concept. Things that belong in the "I like it" category can be classified by who the speaker is, and here it's someone named Jimmy Wales. When I first saw Wikipedia in 2003, I thought it was an interesting way to improve my knowledge about the Internet because at that time it was a real surprise. A special web site that's not owned by anyone. During the first few 2 years or so after I learned about it, it was improving in several ways. These days, however, there are other wikis, for example, the Muppet Wiki, which are built similarly but differ in that they're related to a particular subject and that that subject is talked about in detail on many articles, to a greater extent than Wikipedia does. In the case of the Muppet Wiki, this subject is Sesame Street. I'm beginning to feel like Wikipedia's whole existence is a remnant from before the popularity of Wikia wikis that go into more depth than Wikipedia on different subjects. Can anyone show that Wikipedia still has pros over the Wikia wikis in any way independent of simply being an older concept?? (A fact I don't deny is that the Wikia wiki that's appropriate will depend on the article; sometimes there can be more than one correct answer. For things related to Sesame Street, this is the Muppet Wiki. For Chiyo Miyako, this is the Gerontology Wiki.) Georgia guy (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have quite a lot of guiideline to keep us out of ILIKEIT territory, all having to do with sources. And I fail to see how this historical exposé has anything to do with the current discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's explaining that I see the whole existence of Wikipedia as something to classify as ILIKEIT. I would like to propose somewhere appropriate on Wikipedia (I don't know the best page to use) information related to my long comment, and I would like to start it after this Afd discussion is done. An important thing is that I would like to know if anyone still likes Wikipedia better than the Wikia wikis in any way. Georgia guy (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off topic, so I indeed agree that you should take this elsewhere. Just to answer your question briefly: if I need solid info about a subject, I go to WP. I'f I'm looking for some intricate trivia for some TV series, movie, game, etc, I go to Wikia (but rarely). WP has clear inclusion criteria, taking care of ILIKEIT. Like it or not, if there are good sources it generally gets included, if there are not (or they don't give any useful info beyond trivia), it doesn't get included. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and gave it a description that reflects the fact that it's related to the WP:ILIKEIT argument. Georgia guy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Georgia guy. You're probably mistaking the quite wide room provided by Wikipedia's policies to its contributors for lack of rules altogether. That would be a mistake. Wikipedia is not a sum of arbitrary preferences, at least not any more. As the project grew, it became inevitable to have more policies and guidelines, else it risked keeling over. So, we go by sources for verifiability; not personal taste. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Age in and of itself is not a reason for notability." Counterpoint: Yes, it is. Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ryan Reeder, it was clearlky explained here that no, it isn't... please base your !vote on policy or guidelines or it is wont to be ignored by the closing admin, as happened with several similar !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an essay at WP:OLDAGE that makes a good point about age alone not being notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians if it is verified that she is the oldest person. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article. » Shadowowl | talk 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge with List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians but only if she is ever announced to be the WOP by Guinness. Currently has less claim to notability than Chiyo Miyako. Only one source that even suggests she might be the WOP and it wouldn't surprise me if that info is taken straight from Wiki. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If guidelines about notability does not present itself to include an article about the oldest living person of our, the human race, then the guideline needs to be tweaked. Common sense dictates the subject is an encyclopaedic entry by just the length of her biological existence on this planet. --Tabletop123 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable person for being the oldest verified living person in the world. I think the article should stay until she dies or if someone older gets verified. Rpvt (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better argument you can give than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE? » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Nom is absolutely spot on once again and WP:NOPAGE applies here too. The fluffy longevity trivia (she likes board games and sleep) expands this article to a whole THREE sentences about her, but there's nothing of interest other than her name, age and country. Easily handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing other than where she was born, and how she became the oldest person in the world. I would also support a redirect to List of the verified oldest people or a redirect/merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you emphasize the word delete if you're okay with a merge?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the oldest living person whose age can be documented. What others are calling "longevity fluff" is really quite unique in her case. Rarely is a supercentenarian approaching the age of 116 able to concentrate for durations long enough to engage in a "board game" and almost all are chair bound and incapable of walking. So her information is relevant.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others, being the oldest known living person in the world is indeed a claim of significance and notability. The Chiyo Miyako AfD completely went against precedent: as noted in that AfD, every oldest living person in the past 14 years (now excluding Miyako and likely to soon include Tanaka, given the anti-supercentenarian bias that seems to be evident upon reading through 51 pages of talk archives) has an article. Quite a few supercentenarians that fell short of being the oldest living person have articles too: Lucy Hannah, Tane Ikai, and even Shigechiyo Izumi and blatantly false claimant Mbah Gotho, just to name examples. It seems that people who are supporting deleting this are merely basing their arguments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And just for the record, Tabletop123 states the case perfectly. 65 HC A7 11:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: "precedent": the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to keep, it just means that we'll have to go patiently through those articles and separate the cruft from the really notable. "Precedent", in fact, is that just living for a long time has never been taken as proof of notability. If you know otherwise, please provide a link to the appropriate guideline. And, yes, IDONTLIKEIT: I don't like articles that fail our inclusion criteria...--Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe she's notable for being a longevity record holder the world's oldest living person is no small accomplishment we have dozens of articles for the Fattest people ever and the Tallest people ever so why can't we have articles for longevity record holders? It just seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a few of the people nominating these type of articles for deletion. I've expanded the page a bit and added some new sources also I think she meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO #2 as A person that has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field because of her longevity record. She is also the subject of a book. Drunk in Paris (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the book: Using Google Translate, it seems to me that the "publisher" of this book is mainly a bookseller. It looks to me like a self-published book, written by her son for her 107th birthday. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I absolutely agree that those bios of the fattest or tallest people are similar cases as this one. Someone who has time should go through that stuff and weed out the cruft. Arguing that growing very old makes a contribution to gerontology is about the most hilarious comment that I have yet encountered in these discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that she could recognized as the world's oldest living person by Guinness World Records soon if that happens she will also meet WP:ANYBIO #1 A person that has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times Drunk in Paris (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that being listed in the Guinness Book is considered a "significant award or honor". There are too many silly things in there for that to apply. A more general point is that even if for the sake of discussion we assume that this person is notable because she got very old', we still should not have an article. As WP:N states, even if a subject is judged notable, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." We need to be able to say something of note, too. In the current article, even after its latest expansion, we don't find anything of note, apart from birthdate and place (and once she passes away, dead date and place). --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as the world's oldest living person. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people took the effort to look past sources in the English language, one would actually relatively easily find a number Japanese sources (including a lot of video material) that cover Mrs Tanaka's life. (Examples: this^[1] (when she became Japan's oldest), this^[2] (a video detailing Mrs Tanaka's entire life, including pictures from her earlier days), this^[3] (Sept. 2016), or this^[4] (Sept. 2017). In addition, as mentioned in the article itself, a book was published about her life, see here^[5] ("In Good and Bad Times, 107 Years Old"), which might include more "relevant" and "justified" information (as stipulated by others) for a Wikipedia article. Lastly, it seems highly unfair to compare Mrs Tanaka to other GWR titleholders when each individual should be treated as such: individually. The title "world's oldest person" actually teaches the world how long people truly live and what the maximum reached age at any point in the last sixty years has been, thus indicating how many of the "old" people might not be telling the truth about their ages and how being the world's oldest person is a distinction within itself - why else would it be perceived a "record"?Fiskje88 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep Plenty of continuing coverage in major publications over several years means that the subject clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Other policy-based reasons to keep include WP:ATD, WP:CENSOR, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. Sources include: New York Times, Guinness World Records, USA Today, Japan Times, Newsweek, Washington Post and many more. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:ANYBIO does this article meet? And I don't think WP:GNG is met when pretty much all of the sources have to say about her is "The oldest person in Japan/world is now Kane Tanaka, of Japan, born 2 January 1903". The other policies for keeping is just hilarious. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please remember to ignore argumets to WP:NOTINTERESTING made by delete !votes. It is not up to us to judge what reliable sources found worthy of note. As several of the keep !votes point out, the article meets the guidelines of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. A redirect or merge has previously failed to retain notable information sourced from reliable secondary source. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:GNG and WP:BASIC met when most of the sources say "The oldest person in Japan/world is now Kane Tanaka, of Japan, born 2 January 1903"? That is not significant coverage, it's routine oldest people coverage. Even with the expansion, the "notable information" lost in a redirect is she got married, had kids and plays board games. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NOPAGE and contains nothing encyclopedic except her birth date, her age, country, and eventually her death date. All of that information can easily fit into a table in a list, where it is easier to view. The fact that she is old, plays board games, walks in nursing home hallways, and had some relatives die in WW2 is not notable or encyclopedic. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ now. The article is now well-written and expanded. Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already voted in this AFD above. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off duplicate !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Please note the off-wiki canvassing here. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment to closing admin: Yet, looking at who voted here, I do not believe (m)any of them have been canvassed. And as a counter to this comment, I would like to bring to the attention that quite a number of the current "delete" votes have been cast by a group of editors who have opposed to longevity-related articles using an aggressive (and belittling) tone and a similarly aggressive manner towards any of the people opposing their point of view for quite a number of times as well as years. I realise I might be at the other end of the spectrum (as in, not opposed to a number of longevity related articles), but I do consider myself a realist; I understand it is not desirable to have articles on the 32nd or 17th oldest living person in the world. However, I also feel that, as Wikipedia editors, it is important to have a WP:NPOV. And frankly, like it or not, the world's media DO report on the oldest living people (such as Mrs Tanaka), and it does not stop there. These oldest of the oldest people also show up in scientific articles (such as ^[1], ^[2], or ^[3]) and it should therefore be useful to report on them in Wikipedia articles as well; these referenced scientific articles (yet many others as well) explore what it takes to grow so old and, like the media outlets, report on the "secrets" that these supercentenarians "spill" (deemed 'fancruft' by this group of opponents), which can actually help in determining the causes of longevity, a term gaining popularity in the media as well (see ^[4], ^[5], and ^[6], for instance). Now, I feel that the current articles being targeted (the Japanese ones) are under attack because they appear less frequently in the media, but even the oldest Japanese people are the subject of longevity-based articles, such as ^[7], ^[8], or ^[9]. Thus, much as Wikipedia reports on tennis players ranked a mere number 500 in the world, I feel it is also our - as in, Wikipedia's - task to report on what the media and science report about supercentenarians such as Chiyo Miyako or Kane Tanaka, even if editors do not feel it is their cup of tea. Again, as Wikipedia it is our job to report what other sources are reporting and to be WP:NPOV. Fiskje88 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment I just had a look at the first two scientific articles that you list (in PLOS ONE and Indian Journal of Medical Research), after that I gave up. They do not even mention Tanaka, so I don't see their relevance here. In fact, no decent scientific journal will mention the names of subjects, due to ethical issues. In any case, the fact that there are scientific articles about people as a group does not make the individuals notable. There are scientific studies about Wikipedia editors, does that make us notable, too? Nobody says we shouldn't report on the oldest people as a group, I just don't believe that the individual articles contribute anything to our knowledge about supercentenarians or to WP as an encyclopedia. As a final note: why I just wrote in my "comment to closing admin" that there has been off-site canvassing, leaving it up to them to judge whether or not to take that into account, you came with what amounts to personal attacks on the editors !voting "delete" here. I really, really, REALLY don't like it to be called biased just because I have an opinion different from yours. Especially not if that opinion is backed by solid arguments. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Randykitty, first of all my apologies if you feel that I was personally attacking you. I don't believe in personal attacks and refrain from using them, so if I've given you the idea that I was doing so, then I am sorry for that. Still, I would like to clarify that I have not said that anyone was biased. Perhaps this is because my native language is not English, but what I was trying to tell was that there is a group of editors who often vote in these AFDs (whether they are in favour or against. Perhaps this should be taken into account by the closing admin. Second of all, one of the points brought up was that being a World's Oldest Person does not automatically gain notability. With my sources - and I could provide more, if preferred, I was trying to make a point that WOPs do gain notability in a variety of different sources (meaning I disagree with the aforementioned statement). Of course, there will always be differences in opinion, but in the end the closing admin will decide. As for now, I hope I have made myself clearer without offending you. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apologies accepted. These debates tend to get a bit (too) heated... --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources in the article are WP:ROUTINE feature articles, and the article is about a living person who is only notable for the "event" of being the world's oldest person, which violates WP:BLP1E. She is no different from any other person who holds the title for being the world's oldest; there will be the same routine feature articles written about the next old person, and the next old person. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. No reason not to include her in a list or summary description somewhere, but she doesn't appear independently notable. Also note given the current state of this AfD I'm un-watching the AfD and will not respond to any replies. SportingFlyer talk 09:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians. No standalone notability. — JFG ^talk 13:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's received significant coverage and her article has now been expanded. She's also had more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage as she was the feature of this article in 2016: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-113-year-old-kane-tanaka-supercentenarian-2016may06-story.html and was in this video last September: http://www.kbc.co.jp/asadesu/asadesutv/detail.html?id=5861 --Dorglorg (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A four-sentence story on her birthday is pretty much par for the course routine coverage. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided are woefully inadequate for establishing notability. Take this source, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-113-year-old-kane-tanaka-supercentenarian-2016may06-story.html, a local newspaper interview that is about 4 paragraphs, two of which say "Funakoshi said his great-aunt attributes her longevity to her faith in God." and "Tanaka likes to write poetry and still remembers her trip to the United States in the 1970s when she visited relatives in California and Colorado." How is this fluffy 'people of the area' article supposed to establish this person is notable enough to be included here? Being super old is not enough of an achievement in itself to establish notability. Valeince (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first thing I did was google her, and found this article in Newsweek on her. Clearly notable, as the world’s oldest person. Delete votes fail to convince me otherwise. Jusdafax (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsweek description is almost certainly taken from Wikipedia at approximately here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well sourced article from a variety of publications. One cited paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, is not a "local newspaper" as stated above. According to the latest audit numbers released by the Associated Press, the regional paper was ranked Number 24 in the top 25 U.S. newspapers. Newsweek, also cited in the Wiki article, is bylined by Newsweek staff writer David Brennan and was not "almost certainly taken from Wikipedia," as misstated above. I cleaned up the article and expanded it some. Easily passes WP:Basic and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She apparently lives in San Diego, so it is very much a "local newspaper." SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. According to this article (first paragraph), she has family in the San Diego area. The article also says Tanaka lives in Japan. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well sourced article on the oldest person. As the world's oldest person, she has received some coverage, certainly enough to meet GNG. We need new guidelines for supercentenarians, but this definitely meets notability criteria. Not swayed by delete votes. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough coverage in independent sources. Is a well known person. Being the oldest person is a thing of notability and should be included in an encyclopedia. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed per Editorofthewiki and seen coverage in independent sources. Emily Khine (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She is the oldest living person in the world. Revisit when she dies, given that she isn't anywhere near being the oldest person ever (she'll be irrelevant). Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per wikipedia policy, once you're notable, you're always notable - we don't keep articles temporarily. SportingFlyer talk 02:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure what the argument is here. Meets the GNG based on the sourcing that I see in the article alone. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look comprehensively at any of the sources? The English language sources are all short obituaries of another person or a four-sentence feature article on her 113th birthday from her hometown paper. The Japanese sources are all short or don't link to an article. The coverage is all limited and routine. SportingFlyer talk 05:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See [3], also [4] is a bit short but fine, combined with worlds oldest person, well, that's fine for GNG. Contrary to what is claimed above, there will be a ton of coverage when she dies, would " when she dies she'll be irrelevant" apply to Chiyo Miyako as well? And that's not WP:CRYSTAL, that's obvious. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "ton of coverage" when Chiyo Miyako died was insufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes, and she was stated by GWR to be the "World's Oldest Person" which is not the case for Tanaka, and may in fact never be per WP:CRYSTAL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And even is she were, being the "WOP" is not an automatic ticket to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chiyo_Miyako is a very strange AfD. If any of the Keep !voters had pointed out that she saw coverage as high as TIME, USA TODAY, etc. it might have ended differently. Lots of keep !votes without discussing the GNG was why the closer closed the way they did. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Kane Tanaka has received coverage far in excess of what would be expected for an otherwise ordinary woman in Japan. Those who argue that being the WOP (or simply very old) are WP:BLP1E is absurd. Being the world's oldest person is an attribute, not a single event. Additionally, I worry greatly that this discussion is tilted against Tanaka because of her country of origin. If the oldest person in the world lived in the Anglosphere, I highly doubt that Wikipedia editors would be making the case that she did not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Circle (film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film clearly exists -- see the BFI, for example. The worst case is that one would merge into the director's page. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:NFILM #4 as its sole reference as well as this shows it was preserved by the Croatian State Archives. Daß Wölf 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daß Wölf and Andrew D.. Nationally released film by major company (Jadran Film) in itself demonstrates passing WP:NFILM. Another bot-tooled created AfD with zero WP:BEFORE effort. --Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is missing references (and I'll go look for some) but a search quickly turns up a lot. Ifnord (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And SALT. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Long (architect)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and résumé-toned article about an architect, whose only evident claim of notability is that he exists. This is referenced entirely to primary sources that cannot carry notability at all, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media -- and it's been speedied as advertorial/promotional three times since July 23, with the same WP:SPA editor repeatedly recreating it again without actually making any effort to address the reasons why it's been getting deleted. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any person is entitled to have an article just because he exists -- certain specific achievements have to be attained, and certain minimum standards of reliable sourceability have to be surpassed, for an article to become earned. I also propose WP:SALT here. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per nom. I started cleaning up and would probably have eventually nominated for deletion too. The sources are all affiliated. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As described above: no independent sources providing evidence of notability. Although, as Bearcat says, the article under this title has been speedily deleted three times, the page has actually been speedily deleted at least six times under different titles. It has been repeatedly created by two single-purpose accounts, one of which is clearly the subject of the article, while the other is either the same person or (more likely I think) someone working for him, very possibly an undisclosed paid editor. The current version is nowhere near as blatantly promotional as earlier versions (in part because of Dom from Paris's clean-up work) but it is still largely promotional in tone, and it lacks suitable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per rationale given by nom. The article actually seems to be sort of advertisement. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Čizmić[edit]

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

Was G11'ed by User:Randykitty but restored as it was kept at a AFD. Reason for deletion : G11. Spammy article, with citations that don't prove the point. Promotional bullshit like extremely multi talented included. » Shadowowl | talk 17:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD appears to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Cizmic. Haris Cizmic is a recent ( 2018-08-02) redirect to Haris Čizmić and has been deleted several times. See [5]. --Vexations (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that 2006 AfD is kind of crazy with dozens of trolly sockey SPAs, even allegedly changing votes! Wow. --Theredproject (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thinly veiled promotional p[age for non-notable person. Many refs fail verification.96.127.244.201 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and IP editor. Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Also, ZOMG that 2006 AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search renders WP and WP mirrors, YouTube, LinkedIn and similar websites, and the subject's own website. No extensive coverage found, fails WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starlite Music Theatre[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale on the talk page of "because it was very notable with a lot of coverage". Although no such coverage exists.

While it certainly was an active venue, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. While there is some coverage in local press, it is the type of routine coverage one would expect to see for a local hall. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because there is enough coverage to warrant an article. A 3,000-capacity theatre that hosted the biggest artists on the planet is indeed enough to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Evangp is the creator of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
- That is completely irrelevant, Onel5969. James500 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has potential, with importance to the local area, architectural significance, regional music scene, etc. It appears to have a less common theater layout. However, as nominator points out, there are limited on-line references. This article will likely require finding hard copy (non-online) citations to improve significantly. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was really famous in its day, and many stars performed there. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a couple of news items that could flesh out the article: whats being built on the site, demolition of the site. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to have importance in the past and passes GNG too. Dial911 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Property guardianship. Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Property Guardians[edit]

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

Article was created for a non-notable company of the same name, speedily deleted but immediately came back as a "scheme" with external links to said company. I have removed the external links to the company but most of what is left is redundant with Property guardianship and what is not should be included there. Count Count (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to property guardianship as per nom. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van (band)[edit]

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

The article that actually talks about the band isn’t even a paragraph; most of the page talks about an album they made. And it is completely unsourced and lacking notability. ~SML • TP 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, they had 3 singles charting on the the Swedish Hit List in 1998 and 1999 for a total of 15 weeks and peaking at #11.[6] They also spent one week on Trackslistan in 1998.[7] I'll see if I can add sources later and maybe expand. bbx (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bbx. They got into the charts several times and reached number 11. Incidentally, a record is a reliable primary source for itself. So not "unsourced". James500 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid band with charting songs. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any commentary in reliable sources. Even with a couple of sourced chart positions, it's still a classic WP:PERMASTUB. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC as a band that has charted. Note that WP:PERMASTUB is 1) not policy; and 2) not a reason for deletion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep voters seem to be misreading/misapplying NMUSIC. WP:BAND states an ensemble may be notable if they have works that charted, not that they are notable – the general notability guideline still applies. PERMASTUB is not a policy, etc., but the idea behind it comes from WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." An encyclopedic article cannot be generated from a source that only lists chart positions. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Van" is a highly Google-resistant name, but I was able to add some details about the music video for "Ice Got My Heart" from this. It was played regularly on MTV (Nordic) per that source, which meets WP:NMUSIC#11. I think this should stay, even as a short article, especially in the absence of a workable merge target. Perhaps Bbx can help expand it further. › Mortee _talk 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BAND with multiple chart entries and rotation on a major TV channel. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Decelle[edit]

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

While the article misleadingly indicates that Decelle actually played for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, he appears to have never advanced beyond A-ball. This article fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Wheeler-Nicholson[edit]

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

Article recently added, by removing redirect to Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. Suggest keep redirect to her grandfather, becuase I can't see how she can pass WP:AUTHOR, as, with the exception of an interview, I don't see any independent reliable sources. 1l2l3k (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to her grandfather, per 1l2l3k's rationale. Nightscream (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codewars[edit]

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

Declined PROD; concern was: not notable, coverage only in unreliable sources, except Forbes. wumbolo ^^^ 12:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. The Forbes.com article is not independent and not a reliable source, since it's an interview with a company ~~co-counder~~ co-founder written by a Forbes contributor. However, the PandoDaily article is okay, and the Opensource.com one might be okay. Opensource.com claims to have an editorial team, but they don't have media independence since they're commissioned by Red Hat. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability to establish article. The Forbes references is a \sites subdomain for web hosting, and is not reliable. There is sufficient coverage in other small references to pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Enough notability established to satisfy me. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't give a keep or delete argument here, but I will say this about the statement Newslinger made: "The Forbes.com article is not independent and not a reliable source, since it's an interview with a company co-counder written by a Forbes contributor."... Wait a minute, so just simply the facts that the article is an interview with a person from the company and it was written by a person whose not closely related to the subject (one of the three requirements for meeting WP:INDEPENDENT) and contributed the article to a source also not related to the subject and thus third party where, unlike a self-published source, you actually have to go through a very strict checking process to have your article qualify for publication in the source (gee, kinda like AN ACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE, and BTW, whoever did the page Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, it should've been obvious to you that articles from Forbes.com can't count as self-published because, for one, the contributors are having another party publish their piece with professional verification, something you even stated when you said "its authors are professionally vetted." It's not like Blogspot or Wordpress pages) makes the source unreliable and not independent?................. What kind of backwards logic is this?! editorEهեইдအ😎 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EditorE: To clarify my first sentence:
  1. The Forbes.com article is not independent because it's an interview with a company co-founder. This is because over 75% of the article was written by the co-founder (since the co-founder's responses are in his own words), and the co-founder is closely affiliated with the subject of the article (his company). This is why the source fails WP:INDEPENDENT.
    "This is because over 75% of the article was written by the co-founder (since the co-founder's responses are in his own words), and the co-founder is closely affiliated with the subject of the article (his company)." That's not how it works. A non-affiliated party still had put the interview together and was the one who worked to get the article onto a reliable source. Just because his words are quoted in the article, even it if is for "over 75%" of it, doesn't mean it's by him at all. It's still by the Forbes contributor, so saying it doesn't mean WP:INDEPENDENT is not correct. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @EditorE: WP:IV considers the interviewer's questions a secondary source and the interviewee's responses a primary source. For the purposes of determining notability, the interviewee's responses are excluded from consideration. For this article, if you strip out the 75% of the text that came from the co-founder, the remaining text doesn't provide significant coverage of the company. All that's left is a passing mention. (To be honest, even if you include the co-founder's input, the article still wouldn't provide significant coverage of Codewars.) — Newslinger talk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. According to past discussions at WP:RSN, Forbes.com contributors have a poor reputation for reliability. Forbes.com's chief product officer made some comments on the quality of the contributed content, and they're very telling. This is why the source fails WP:RS.
Additionally, for this particular article, if you click through to the article author's bio on Forbes.com, you'll see that he works in public relations, and articles are just his medium of choice. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "you'll see that he works in public relations, and articles are just his medium of choice." I have one basic question: So what? editorEهեইдအ😎 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  He's a marketer, not a journalist, and his articles are equivalent to press releases, which are not reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Its a startup that raised funding - just like every other startup. This does not make it notable and Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a company/idea. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and (more usually) WP:ORGIND, specifically they are not intellectually independent. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PandoDaily article and Opensource.com article in my mind provide enough coverage. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've decided to !vote keep because there's no direct connection between Red Hat and Codewars. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilwins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP John from Idegon (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Emmet County, Michigan#Economy, where a brief description of Kilwins is mentioned with the same sources and purpose Redditaddict69 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

Keep I have updated the article with more secondary sources and will continue to do so. I don't think that a merge makes sense for a nationwide chain. Teemu08 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for notability and are not intellectually independent failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this franchise has 120 locations, and almost every new store opening gets a mention in local press. There are also sources with general coverage of the company, a few of which I just added. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine announcements of store openings do not speak to notability, and that is virtually all the sources that have been added since nominations. The "Forbes" bit at least speaks to the chain as a whole, but it is still not discussion in detail. Pop polls like that are not worth much. John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in November 2017 we had a similar discussion for Steak Escape that was closed as no consensus. [[8]] I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but they have a similar number of locations - about 100 locations - and sourcing isn't much better, but they are also international. I think notability for franchises has to be judged differently than if was just a single company operating from a headquarters and with maybe a handful of branch offices. Because of the type of business this is, a candy store, the activity is at the franchise level, not the HQ, which is why most of the coverage is local. Perhaps it would be good to formulate some threshold to help us with these borderline ones - maybe having a minimum number of locations? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument that is more appropriate for the Talk page at WP:NCORP. Currently, NCORP says nothing about creating an exception for franchises and for me, I don't believe an exception is warranted. If this chain was truly notable, it would have at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. It doesn't. The routine store announcements fail the criteria. Have you been able to find any other references that might possible meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in my opinion (which obliquely supports what you are saying), Steak Escape is not a good example as it would not pass AfD now, especially since NCORP has been updated. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. So the argument that we should allow Kilwins because Steak Escape was a "No Consensus" last November doesn't make sense since neither meet the criteria for articles. If your argument is for exception in NCORP for franchises, you need to get community consensus for such a change first before applying to articles. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To contrast against Steak Escape, though, you don't see a full-page story in regional newspapers when they open a new franchise. There is no doubt that these papers are writing somewhat softball articles, but its impossible to say that there is some sort of financial connection between the two entities. There was a consensus as recently as April that individual notability guidelines shouldn't trump GNG guidelines. Teemu08 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been the case. All NCORP does as a guideline is assist in interpreting GNG in the context of companies. And the rules of how to interpret "independent" are very clear. Because companies and organizations have PR and marketing departments, there must be two references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. This article doesn't even have one. If you think it does, which ones do you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the articles in any of the newspapers or books cited in this article qualify as independent. None disclose any relationship with the organization, and it is pure speculation to state otherwise. Teemu08 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Teemu08 for the clarification. Your position, that any/all of the articles in the newspapers and books cited in the article qualify as independent, is incorrect and (in my opinion) based on an incorrect interpretation of "independent". It does not mean that there is a relationship between the organization and the publisher. Please read WP:NCORP (the applicable guidelines for organizations/companies) which clarifies that "independent" means "intellectually independent". For example, this reference from richmond.com is based on a company announcement (therefore based on a PRIMARY source), relies on an interview with the Poh's (a connected source) and has no intellectually-independent opinion or analsys. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Moving to another, this reference from Miami New Times (is an advertorial) relies on interviews with the store owner and employees, etc, etc, fails WP:ORGIND and is not "intellectually independent". You get the drift. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your argument gives me a better understanding of where you are coming from with this. However, unless I am missing something, I still disagree that those articles are in violation of the dependent coverage clause of N:CORP. From my interpretation, your view requires some reading-between-the-lines on what constitutes "independent". There is no mention in N:CORP about any prohibition on a piece that includes input from the subject in question. You may be right that such pieces shouldn't qualify, but I can only operate within what is written in the guidelines. Teemu08 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemu08, glad you've got a better understanding. A couple of very quick points. When evaluating a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, there are a number of factors. Both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections are very helpful in assisting editors in evaluating sources. CORPDEPTH provides a list of trivial coverage as well as examples of substantial coverage. None of the examples you have provided can be regarded as substantial coverage. More appropriately, ORGIND lists examples of independent sources and states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article include original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. This is the primary reason why those references are not considered to be independent and why they fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. If you feel I have incorrectly reached this conclusion, please point out the content within these articles that I may have overlooked. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I would counter with the unsolicited review in the Palm Beach Post (McMillan)--I don't see anything in that review that would violate the product reviews section of NCORP. I also chose to cite Harris & Lyon because their guide gave more than just a trivial mention of Kilwins. The Traverse City Record Eagle, while admittedly pushing the definition of "regional" a bit, does not include company output. Also, I don't have access to this article, but if anyone does, the Philadelphia Business Journal might have a nice clinical approach to the company. Teemu08 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teemu08, I think you might be misinterpreting NCORP wrt product reviews. NCORP guidelines Thelp determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The guidelines are not to be interpreted to mean that if a company's product is reviewed and the review article meets the criteria for establishing notability, then the article can also be used as an indication of the notability of the company. Notability is not inherited. A product review can be used to determine whether the product is notable but unless the review also contains significant coverage of the company, it cannot be used to establish notability of the company. Also, please bear in mind that independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references you have provided meet the requirement for "independent content". Finally, the Philadelphia Business Journal" article is also not intellectually independent and relies extensively on quotations from persons connected with Kilwins/Simpson family and does not provide and independent/original opinion/analysis/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough coverage. Redditaddict69's suggested redirect is not at all reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi power~enwiki, can you point to a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability? None of the references I have found or in the article or elsewhere are either not intellectually independent or they've nothing in-depth about the company. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now because Kilwins is expanding to a dozen or so new locations over the next year. It is a nationwide chain at this point and growing rapidly. Several people have been expanding the article to make it more relevant, too. If deleted, it will eventually be recreated because more people will know about it. Redditaddict69 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmet County, Michigan#Economy where the subject is already mentioned. Does not meet WP:NCORP; just a private company going about its business and looking for franchisees. Not independently notable, with advertorial undertones. A brief mention in the target article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should this discussion be closed by now? Redditaddict69 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; consider userfying. Redditaddict69's point is well-taken; a rapidly-growing franchise will probably attract additional coverage (if grows too fast and fails, that too will attract coverage). I'm forced to agree that the current sources don't get the company over the NCORP bar. That's a shame; they have pretty good ice cream. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is still open? I'm still a keep vote. There's absolutely no reason to redirect a company with 125 franchises across the US to a page about the county their headquarters are located in. The references are local newspaper coverage of their stores (which is local but independent; there's nothing excluding these in WP:CORPDEPTH), travel guides (some of which look like paid placement), and directories of franchise businesses (there's also stuff like this case study which obviously isn't independent). In my view, the "local" coverage is sufficient here. I'm not sure what type of reference would satisfy the delete voters, and I don't think it's reasonable to claim this type of business is never notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Bottom line is that if this company was truly notable today, we'd have more than just announcements in local newspapers. We'd at least have something that meets the criteria for NCORP (in case you're wondering, that's something that might change someone's mind from Delete to Keep). Our guidelines might not be perfect but they've been honed over years and years to come up with the *minimum* criteria for establishing notability, so I'm not inclined to be swayed by arguments that ask to put those guidelines aside. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That lack of sources HK speaks of dooms us to having a PR puff piece. Look at all the factual information missing. There is 0 info on how the company supplies the stores. There is no information on how the stores are sited. There is no information on who owns the real estate. This is the factual information required to write an article about a food franchise operation. Further, if you look closely at all the bits on openings, you can clearly see the language similarities. The odds of professional wordsmiths in many disparite locations choosing such similar language are infinitely small, indicating that these stories were written off boilerplate press releases. There are virtually no independent sources. John from Idegon (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article mentions that the ice cream is produced at their main facility but that other confectioneries are made on site. It also mentions that the company specifically targets resort areas (they specifically target areas with high foot traffic but that seemed redundant). I could add specifics about the actual financial obligations for opening a location since we have good RS's on it, but I thought that it struck the wrong tone for an encyclopedic article. Teemu08 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? What reliable independent source do you have for that information? John from Idegon (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redditaddict69 and power~enwiki. A company with a large franchise, deletion is pointless. Hzh (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any links to references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? Without references, keeping is pointless. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 120 locations in 23 states is hardly a trivial size. The sources given in the article are of sufficient notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Absence of certain information is not in and of itself a reason to delete if sufficient notability is established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- CORPDEPTH doesn't require the sources to be of "sufficient notability" and the references in the article that might pass CORPDEPTH then fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the comment chain up above with HighKing is rather long I will try to lay out my argument as cogently as I can and then leave it in the hands of the XFD folks. The crux of the dispute is what defines "independent" with regards to the notability criteria. NCORP, fortunately, has a section on this and we can compare it against the article. We are asked to consider the independence of the author and content. The articles given as examples were written by well-established sources (regional newspapers mostly) who have no demonstable financial link to the company. There is no reason to believe that any of the authors or publications are in any way stakeholders in the company, and the success or failure of the company has no bearing on the publication. The subsequent section outlining examples of dependent coverage doesn't give us much reason to doubt notability either: the articles clearly are not written by the company in any form and there is no reason to believe that these particular articles were paid for in otherwise reliably independent sources. In my opinion, the counter-arugment to its notability requries such a specific and strict view of NCORP that it runs afoul of WP:BURO. I don't agree that input from a shareholder invalidates a source as otherwise independent, and I do not agree that there is sufficient grounds to say NCORP as currently written prohibits these sources without a significant degree of interpretation. Teemu08 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Teemu08, I think you've done a pretty good job at justifying the references in terms of "functional independence" (then again, just about all references are good here) but you have not addressed "intellectual independent" at all. NCORP provides this summary: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, if you think there's a reference or two that is intellectually independent and meets the criteria for establishing notability and that consensus will support your reasoning why, then please post a link here with your reasoning. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Oudghiri[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable entrepreneur. Creator Ahg0606 has few edits outside this topic. MER-C 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This entry cites two New York Times articles about this person[9][10], who is the co-founder and CEO of a 100+ person tech company, as well as a U.S. Patent held by the subject for his invention[11] and articles from other credible media outlets including Fast Company[12], TechCrunch[13], PCMag[14] and others. I believe this suffices to meet WP:BASIC. As far as the creator (me) having few edits outside of this topic, while it is true that I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not believe that should factor into the credibility of this article, for which I have attempted to provide ample sourcing and maintain a neutral tone for all claims. If there are things that can be done to make this article better, I would love input, rather than simply deleting it! Thank you!Ahg0606 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Enigma (company). The independent reliable sources in the article and available via search are about Enigma (company), and do not contain the significant coverage of the article subject required by WP:GNG. So subject fails WP:BASIC, but the company does not, and either a delete of this article or redirect to his company makes some sense. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources, insofar they are independent, are about Enigma, not Oudghiri. I just proposed the Enigma article for deletion (CSD#G11), so I !vote delete, not redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pražský dobrodruh[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Bad faith nomination, one of six (!!!) made in a single minute. WP:BEFORE is being flouted and (semi-)automation abused. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the nomination in bad faith? The Czech version also have no references.

The Google search produced a couple of hits but I can't read Czech. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author of this book, Rudolf Slawitschek, is notable due to the coverage he has received, but lacks an article. (In particular, the novel "Hans Adam Lowenmacht" by Slawitschek won some awards). Cf his article on the czech wikipedia. James500 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book won a significant prize, thge Prague City Prize and has been the subject of critical commentary. The article has been expanded, in part with text from the Czech Wikipedia, and now has references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not realise this was "Hans Adam Lowenmacht". Satisfies GNG. This has details of awards according to this. James500 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ABC News (Australia)#Weekend Breakfast. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Breakfast[edit]

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

This article has existed since 2011 (nearly 7 years) but only has about two sentences of information. It also has no references beyond the show's official website (primary source), and beyond the lead section, the article is just a list of presenters, which may fail WP:LISTPEOPLE. The actual text of the article is basically already covered by ABC News (Australia)#Weekend Breakfast. The lack of references also causes it to fail the notability policy. – numbermaniac 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. Vorbee (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ABC News (Australia)#Weekend Breakfast as a search term ("ABC Weekend Breakfast" may also need a "redirect"), can then be broken out as a standalone when/if sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to News Breakfast, the weekday version of this show, and per standard procedure for the 'it exists' weekend versions of breakfast television shows nearly universally outside of exceptions like CBS Sunday Morning. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree, News Breakfast is a much better target. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 03:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of box office bombs (2000s)[edit]

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

Per talk page, far too long to be useful and far too much effort required to restore the article to good quality, as determined by consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete all. Questionable lists.. i scanned through several of them and the inclusion criteria seem questionable as many of the films don't really qualify as "box office bombs" as they did respectably or were just low budget films that were never expected to make a lot of money. Contrary to comments made on that article's talk page, a film is not considered a "huge flop" if it doesn't make it's money back in it's theatrical domestic release. Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They are not notable, and the idea of a box office bomb is too subjective for a list here. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, too subjective. Not really useful to have these long lists either. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of "box office bombs" is notable but these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As Spanneraol rightly points out above, not every film that fails to make its money back on the theatrical run is considered a "bomb". As I stated at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs_(2000s)#straw_poll, if you view reliable sources on this topic it is the magnitude of the loss that is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT is the right approach to these articles - it's a notable topic but the amount of text, broken references (some of whose breaking has been furthered by bot attempts to fix), and entries that are probably not supported by a reasonable inclusion criteria means that fixing them is a herculean task. I have spent more hours than I care to count trying to fix List of box office bombs (2010s) and it remains an article needing hours more work to have it in good shape. It would be best to start these over and slowly build them up if there is indeed a will to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Another attempt to put a 'I hate all these films because they're war crimes' lists into an article form here (too many AfD's to cite), only breaking it out by decade to try to spread out the legwork needed to delete, and by cherry-picking sources that mention the magic three words 'box office bombs', when per Spanneraol, most of them were just low cost films that easily broke even on other platforms such as home media and pay-TV. Definitely subjective, and doesn't make mention of business models of the past, like the hilarious Wizard of Oz example where it was re-released multiple times in theaters and made back the budget after the fact. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this presumes a lack of good faith from BornonJune which I have not seen from them in EXTENSIVE discussion on this subject. Also unlike other articles your mentioning there is an abundance of RS which label movies as bombs so in the ideal version of these articles (which as my delete vote notes these are far from) editors need not make any editorial judgments as you imply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing meant by my vote! outside a tiredness of the 'negative reception' articles being used to push things that had an average reception to most viewers/moviegoers; it's been an issue for a long time, and many of these articles have been deleted. I do not mean this singling out any single editor. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amount of text present is causing my computer and probably others to lag and become slow. This article is too subjective. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - appreciate that a lot of effort went into these, but they are all just poorly defined, poorly sourced page-fill. We already have a well-established, well-maintained, comprehensive article; List of box office bombs. WP doesn't need pages and pages listing every. single. film. in the history of cinema that ever failed to even make a dollar's worth of profit. - wolf 00:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the words were copied from other Wikipedia articles, seemingly by some automated program. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the intricacies of Hollywood accounting, nearly all entries in these lists are nothing but speculation. Daß Wölf 03:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all, not a valid criterion for inclusion, the idea is too subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was G11'ed by DGG, who neglected to close this. Any concerns should be taken up with him, not me. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lalrozama Hmar[edit]

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

Hyperbolic autobiographical article that does not meet any notability criteria specifically WP:NMMA or WP:KICK PRehse (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for actors, martial artists, kickboxers, MMA fighters, or authors. What at first appears to be lots of sources turns out to be lots of routine sports reporting. Accomplishments seem to be very exaggerated and often unsupported (member of the Illuminati and Freemason, significant movie role as an unnamed character). The lack of independent and significant coverage indicates that WP:GNG is also not met. Main author is an SPA and this is likely an autobiography. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub There's a lot of stuff here sourced off Youtube or Scribd that is not a reliable source. But there's probably enough that is reliably sourced to meet minimum WP:BLP standards. Needs clean-up, but not necessarily deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the multiple independent reliable sources that give significant coverage of him? As I said before, what I see is lots of routine sports reporting which does not show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete-G11 stuff.Invoke TNT, please.....∯WBG^converse 09:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In the Country Fell a Star. Redirected to In the Country Fell a Star (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Coperchia è caduta una stella[edit]

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

Crappy bot article. No sources and not meeting WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about the 1933 stage play, not the 1939 film based on it, which has its enwiki article at In the Country Fell a Star. Unfortunately the film has a similar title in Italian and was directed by the playwright's brother, so it is hard to search for material about the play without hitting the movie. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:FILM doesn't technically apply (as this is a play not a film) but it does assist in giving some guidance. The Italian wiki is also a stub, no helpful references there. Ifnord (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Country Fell a Star, which already contains the one sentence worth of information. Sandstein 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The London Sessions Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage only. Just a list of tour dates and set lists. --wooden superman 13:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTOUR, coverage of its financial performance does make it notable. Admittedly the coverage is limited but I think it scrapes by → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B&R Samizdat Express[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP ; small publishing house which was founded to publish the founder's own books, and which also publishes public domain books (apparently collected from Project Gutenberg) in various e-book formats. They changed their name to Seltzberg Books last year, but I cannot find independent sources discussing the company in depth under the old or the new name. bonadea contributions talk 15:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macaire le Copte[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's trivial to verify the existence of this work and there seems to be significant coverage in François Weyergans: Romancier. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. As a winner of the Prix des Deux Magots and the Prix Victor-Rossel, this book also satisfies criteria 2 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. James500 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pending someone introducing some accurate, verifiable information that isn't already included in François Weyergans. Having a one-sentence article that only duplicates a fraction of the relevant information in the main article is unhelpful. No comment on notability or potential to become more than a useless non-article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article contains accurate, verifiable information that is not included in the article about François Weyergans. This article is more than one sentence long. WP:PRESERVE applies to the content of this article. James500 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as winner of major prize (Deux Magots) and with scope for expansion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as prize-winning novel with published reviews. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has won significant awards. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of British Columbia#Sustainability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water sustainability at UBC[edit]

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

No evidence of notability ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of British Columbia#Sustainability. The target section focuses almost entirely on a single building in the campus, and could use some rebalancing. Topic is not notable enough to merit its own article. — Newslinger talk 21:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early v.rough consensus over lacking notability, but discussion should be had over delete/merge/redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of British Columbia#Sustainability. Source text can delete some of the explanatory material if it is in a larger article, and target could be improved with additional info. This article's sole focus on water sustainability at UBC is too narrow to support with proper sourcing. Bakazaka (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not enough sourcing and unlikely to have enough based on the topic. The article only mentions a couple buildings in any case. What about the rest of them? An article on this topic would need more information than what it currently has to merit and stand-alone article. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The After Moon Show[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show. Pakistan Today article (present at the article) is the only worthy mention of the show. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was checked for resources and found some reliable ones, here is one from Gulf News [15], and others are [16], also mention in this source [17] and Pakistan Today article is already mentioned above so the notability is established very well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.18.15.214 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of deities in Marvel Comics. Sandstein 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidar (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: V. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge.--Killer Moff (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of deities in Marvel Comics. If you remove the link from Template:Thor, Template:Marvel Comics deities, and Template:Thor family tree, the article is linked by 5 articles. Only Ymir (Marvel Comics) is an in-line link, and that's still an offhand reference. The proposed target provides a minimum of real-world information about the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argento. Not notable enough for own article, but significant enough (more than 10 appearances) to merit being on a list. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reasonable consensus for the article to be removed in some fashion, but disagreement over delete ad redirect/merge remains
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Argento works. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of deities in Marvel Comics per Argento. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harness (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Literally says in the article that the character has only appeared in one storyline. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proteus (Marvel Comics), which suitable summarizes the character and the storyline. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the limited notability (i.e. amount of reliable, third-party coverage) for a merge. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reasonable consensus to delete article, but decision over straight delete or redirect/merge remains
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really mulled over whether or not to redirect but the mainspace incoming links are trivial and would be confusing to redirect to Proteus. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas Trail[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the sources come back to a single author and his books. Looks highly promotional. Fails WP:GNG as no sources are independent Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to deletion. The article is on a par with other Wiki entries for walking trails. It has been multi-authored since 2010. Its references do come back to the works of one author but there are no others, though it can be improved by references to reviews/discussions of the Trail eg in the BBC’s Countryfile Magazine . The article should remain but the external links to pubs should be deleted. August 4 2018. Celynbach

Comment - I can see no substantive edits other than your own. Most edits are highly gnomish around categories, commons files and welsh language translation . I can see nothing else substantive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Features on Long Distance Walkers Association web page and apparently merits inclusion, in the absence of a specific notability guideline on long-distance trails. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: “The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” (WP:GNG:) The Wiki article on the Dylan Thomas Trail passes this test:

Guides

The Trail is listed on the following websites: Long Distance Footpaths in Wales, the Long Distance Walkers Association, The Walking Englishman, Open Paths and Trails, Geocaching, GPS Walking and Cycling Routes, Geograph, Wales Directory of Walks, Discover Ceredigion, VisitmidWales, and Tourist Attractions in Ceredigion.

The coastal stretch of the Trail forms part of the Wales Coast Path and the Ceredigion Coast Path. The Trail is included in John B. Jones’ 2014 book, The Ceredigion and Snowdonia Coast Paths. It is also included in The Ramblers guide at The Ramblers

The Trail is also listed on Wikipedia’s Routeyou: routeyou

and at WikiVisually: wikivisually

and also at newquay-westwales

Media

The Trail has been featured on the BBC’s Countryfile Magazine (at countryfile), and on the BBC’s Weatherman Walking programme (at weatherman walking)

The Trail comes first on the Wales Online list of 100 things to do in Ceredigion before You Die (at walesonline)

Newspaper coverage has included The Daily Telegraph May 15 and June 13 2014 and the Independent October 23 2014.

The Trail has also attracted the attention of photographers, such as Jeremy Miles (at Miles)

Books and Journals

Discussions of and/or references to the Trail can be found in:

F. Rhydderch (2003) Adieu Dylan, editorial, New Welsh Review, 62, Winter

O. Palusci (2006) Translating Tourism Linguistic/Cultural Representations, Cicerone

M. Griffths (2009) Small Town on the Big Screen: The Edge of Love and the Local Experience, in Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 6, November

C.L. Nevez et.al. (2009) The Rough Guide to Wales

National Geographic (2009) Food Journeys of a Lifetime: 500 Extraordinary Places to Eat Around the Globe

S. W. Rhydderch (2015) Ceredigion Coast: Llareggub and the Black Lion in A Dylan Odessey: 15 Literary Tour Maps, ed. S. Edmonds, Literature Wales/Graffeg

Dylan Thomas websites

The Trail is referenced at Dylan Thomas and also included on the official Dylan Thomas website discoverdylanthomas

and on that of the Dylan Thomas Society at DT Soc.

as well as at dylanthomasnews

The Trail is included in the Wikipedia articles for New Quay, Aberaeron, Lampeter, Llangrannog and Ceredigion Celynbach (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional references have been added. I think that notability has been shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dylan Thomas websites don't speak to notability, but I think it's been talked about enough in other sources to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly Notable. Per WP:NEXIST this trail was notable also before the nomination. That said, thanks for referencing, all! gidonb (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4th Galaxy Lollywood Awards[edit]

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

The identical reasons to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Galaxy Lollywood Awards. Narky Blert (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against future redirection. [18] indicates that Galaxy Lollywood is a "leading film tabloid", and from [19] and [20] (and the definitely not RS [21]) its awards and reviews should be treated as contributing to notability of Pakistani films. Barring further evidence of offline or Urdu language coverage, there isn't anywhere near enough visible for a keep. I suspect, however, that at some point it would be reasonable for Galaxy Lollywood to exist, the awards to be briefly covered there, and this and the other award titles to redirect there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. I endorse the remarks by H
₃O⁺
OH⁻
. Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Rich[edit]

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

Not notable actor. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not clear his role in one film was even significant, nothing else was even close to being notable, so he is not at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appeared in at least two major movies, with a key role in the Bond movie. Readers may well be interested in what else he did. The sources typically give only passing mention, describing his role rather than him as a person, but there are many sources. Quantity makes up for quality, my view. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion work by Aymatth2. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly well-known by James Bond and Dr. Who fans. I believe he appeared in a few TV commercials in the 60s or 70s due to his being recognizable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More substantive discussion of the films in question would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those Doctor Who roles are trivial, he's certainly not well-known by Doctor Who fans, very few of whom know or care about episodes from the 1960s at all, and certainly not about an extra who appeared in three episodes. There are no references to his birth or death date; which is a sign that there hasn't been significant coverage of him, just of shows he had minor roles in (that don't meet WP:ENT). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Dr Who went into color after the 1960s it became formulaic and often dull. Rich played an important, if minor, role in the classic early episodes when the series was truly innovative. What he is really known for is his unforgettable performance in the most memorable scene of You Only Live Twice, which grossed over $111 million in 1967, more than $800 million in today's dollars. That iconic role alone is enough to establish notability. Readers will be interested in finding about about his other work. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aymatth2, he has a place in Dr. Who history. At that time as you mention, the pre-color time of Dr. Who was when it was ground breaking. Ronald Rich is a noteworthy part of that history. His character Gunnar the Giant, was in 2 consecutive episodes in July 1965, "The Watcher" and "The Meddling Monk". He also appeared later that year as Trantis in "Mission to the Unknown". He has also joined the ranks of bond the villains throughout history. Dr. Who history and James Bond history. Yes, notable! Karl Twist (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article and references have been substantially improved and he has some notable roles as shown by the Esquire source, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whore Angels[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. Significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. References in the article are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. The "Pink Grand Prix - Silver Prize" (2nd best film) award is not well-known or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability,Fails GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG.jonnycraig888 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "Pink Grand Prix" is a fanzine competition, not a well-known / significant award, even if second place were to count as winning. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwoods Idaho[edit]

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

This isn't really a secondary school, per se, it's a residential treatment facility for teens that also offers education. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it in any depth, and I checked Google, GNews, GBooks, GScholar, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Students enroll in Forrest Bird Charter School and can either attend class as an on campus student or take the classes online [22] Forrest Bird Charter School is listed in the Sandpoint, Idaho#Education section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tacyarg (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that NCORP and CORPDEPTH are satisfied via various sources (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zapier[edit]

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

A advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable tech sources, plenty of reliable business sources, and a couple of mentions in the news like [23]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my ineptitude - I'm just learning how to do this. But I would keep this article simply because it provides an unbiased overview of Zapier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DwayneReid (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Reviewed in detail by PC Magazine and received significant coverage from TechCrunch, Network World, and PC World. One of the company's business practices has also received significant coverage from Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, and Inc.. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Gama[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I searched for biographical details ie full name, but cannot find articles that attest to notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dubbing voices does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now and until reliable sources about his career are presented in detail. Couldn't find anything about this actor beyond simple mentions of the dubs he made. Willing to help with reading Spanish sources and expanding article if need be. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am watching this to consider deletion too since, and nothing has changed. A simple inconsequential work of dubbing voices in movie doesn't make him pass GNG or WP:ARTIST. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Miss–UAB football rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-GNG context

Prior Dec 2014 AfD was unanimous delete.
UAB team was disbanded 2015-2016.
Article was then recreated April 2016 (based on no additional, core information).
Series has resumed with only the October 2017 game played since AfD.
Teams are both members of the West division of Conference USA.

Article has four citations for rivalry including one from AP which state rivalry, all of which predate UAB's 2017 return to football. I lean towards delete re WP:GNG and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," but keep is reasonable especially if based on additional cites. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete previous AFD resulted in delete without controversy, and I can see no compelling reason to bring the article back (not really seeing a passage of WP:GNG for the rivalry itself). I think it was a good-faith attempt to bring the article back, I just don't see what notability measure it passes.-Paul McDonald (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Michael Donovan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present are mostly about his company, other items, and WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His claims to notability are that he is 1) CEO / co-founder of a company, 2) founder of an organisation, 3) winner of an award (plus others of presumed lesser notability), and 4) an expert on public-private partnerships, etc. #1 and #2 do not sufficiently establish notability unless the company/organisation is established as notable, and by default CEOs of companies with minor notability don't pass the bar (see WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE). In theory if Draft:ADEC Innovations/ADEC Innovations were to be established as notable he could be redirected and briefly covered there, but this doesn't appear overwhelmingly likely. #3 does not appear to rise to the level of WP:ANYBIO#1. Nor does coverage of his expertise appear sufficient to equate to WP:ACADEMIC#1, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - seems like a run of the mill businessman, although if his work in Manila was pioneering, then better sources could be found, added, and beefed up to show notability. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References to subject as a UNECE partner for his experience in business process management, sustainability and PPPs. Multiple sources of information about the subject from UN, business, entrepreneur websites to top media organizations validates his notability. Subject was recently appointed as Honorary Consul for Samoa in the Philippines. Fengwei200 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Most sources are routine coverage of the person's business, and not the person himself. Previously speedy deleted under WP:G11. See delete log. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Church of God[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:ORGDEPTH. Of the secondary sourcing provided, the only true coverage is of the decision to build, and completion of, their headquarters building, with some PR filler behind. This in and of itself is only covered by local media (within the city of location and an outlet of the larger city [Akron, OH] media 15 miles away) so what is there seems quite regional, and is based on the one event of the facility construction. A search finds little to nothing else to suggest broader notability. Roberticus talk 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim of having 50 congregations is probably enough to meet notability guidelines for church sects; the references I find are largely primary sources (either by the church or by its opponents). There's no article on David C. Pack to redirect to, a merge to an article on Armstrongite church spin-offs might be reasonable but would involve a significant amount of work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this claims congregations meeting weekly in 65 countries. That ought to be enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! However, I'd like to point out that the external link you refer to is the webpage of the subject , and as a self-published source is neither independent nor particularly verifiable or trustworthy. So essentially it's just an assertion which I'd argue does little or nothing to really demonstrate notability, which needs be established by reliable sources... Roberticus talk 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major church with congregations in 65 countries, there should be offline sources if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! However, I'd like to point out that you are relying on an unreliable self-published source as noted above. Also, your assumption that good offline sources exist amounts to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, which I'd argue is pretty dubious, since the subject was only founded in 1999, and as has already been noted this church has a significant web presence... Roberticus talk 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow an opportunity for offline sources, or other independent sources, to be posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Even if 65 countries is excessive (and I accept that it is from a self-published source), this splinter of Armstrong's church is still likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not to be argumentative Peter, but that seems to be a pretty subjective statement with no real supporting basis besides the subject's own claims on their own media... nevertheless, this debate hasn't seemed to catch much further traction. I'm generally an inclusionist myself and try to find opportunities to !vote at AfD where something ought truly be kept, so I respect your stance. I only ever feel moved to propose a deletion where there's no real basis besides the subject's self-serving claims to importance. I think readers get a sense of this where an article subject has so little supporting it in reliable or secondary sources, they realize the article was essentially a covert advertisement, which leaves them feeling they can't trust such a ubiquitous & invaluable living reference which I believe Wikipedia is, and which touts itself as being ad-free as one of its distinctives... Roberticus talk 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness, took a quick shot at sourcing some references found in major media, not too substantial but they are mentions.... Roberticus talk 17:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason I have just this minute logged onto Wikipedia was to read about David C. Pack. If I am redirected to Restored Church of God then Wikipedia is doing its job. If I am shown a red link then Wikipedia is failing me. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USAePay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources of the article are a mix of directory listings, press releases, and one interview. The only other source I can find is a negative review from Cult of Mac, but that site is a blog, and one source is insufficient to meet notability guidelines. — Newslinger talk 00:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deleted in 2009 and doesn't seem to have improved. PR and self-sourcing. Advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search finds PR mentions and routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not notable enough for an article. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and not written in a neutral tone ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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