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. This applies to the current unsourced one-sentence stub, which reads in full: "Cyrillization of German refers to any system of transcription or transliteration of German language text using the Cyrillic script", or the previous unsourced/OR content. It is without prejudice to a sourced recreation; but any such recreation can of course be challenged again at AfD. Sandstein 09:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of German[edit]

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

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

Not sure if this is a topic here, could not find any sources indicating such a system ever existed. Created by a known disruptive editor (see this ANI thread) and was subsequently TNT'd, however it still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:V. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a question of notability (there are plenty of souces about the systems for transliterating German names into languages that use the Cyrillic script), it's a question of topic structure: do we want to have separate articles about each system or language, or should we cover them all in a single umbrella article? It's more practical to have a single article and hence keep this, nevermind how minimal its content happens to be at present. – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyrillization. @Uanfala: I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand your suggestion to keep this article. Can you clarify? Daask (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it's a topic on which we would ultimately prefer to have a proper article, then I don't see a particular benefit in deleting the one-sentence stub we've got at the moment. It's easier to expand an existing article than to create a new one, especially for new users. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The Cyrillization article is little more than a directory of articles on the various languages. Some of them (e.g. Korean and Japanese) have a specific system that may be widely accepted, but German, apparently, does not: the hoax tag on the article is remnant of an earlier version which apparently represents some guy on the internet's ideas, but there's no mention of any specific system which enjoys any official approval. So redirecting is just going to result int he redirect getting deleted because the main article doesn't actually say anything about the subject. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: This page is an inaccurate dicdef of an SOP. "Cyrillisation" means the process of converting something to Cyrillic; but this refers to a system or systems for doing the process. Then this is SOP ("sum of parts"): for any language, Chinese, Thai, Swahili, whatever, you could generate a copy with "German" replaced by the new language. This sort of thing (and there are editors doing it) does not improve Wikipedia. The Cyrillicisation article could have a section on German, and if this became big enough it could be a separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete As above, a broad concept that is not well defined enough/notable to substantiate an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per all of the observations above. Wikipedia is not 'stuff we make up'. Languages can be transliterated from one script to another (including some scholarly and teaching texts) but, even if it were verifiable, it doesn't pass the "other stuff" test. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: de.WP has a decently-comprehensive article on this (or at least, on an adjacent topic), de:Deutsch-russische Transkription, with an explanation of who developed the standard system, and a table of it. Although the current en.WP article is a stub created by a problematic editor, I think it (or, an article on transcription of German into Russian Cyrillic) could be brought up to the same level as Cyrillization of French and other similar articles we have. I will set about translating the de.WP article into English soon (and trying to find more sources: I notice the de.WP article is short on them), probably as a userspace draft so you all can decide whether it should supplant this stub or go to a different title like Transliteration of German into Russian or something (tying in to Uanfala's question of whether we want to document all the systems of Cyrillization in one article, or separate them by which language German is being transcribed into). -sche (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article you've pointed to has only one form of transcription originally devised in 1969. The Cyrillization of French article is essentially bang in the middle of the same boat of WP:NOR and WP:OSE as this article, and the Cyrillization of Korean has already been deleted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ru.WP article has got more sources than the de.WP one, but it's not a great deal more detailed. If an article is created, I'd be willing to add a section about the official Bulgarian standard, provided that it's desired that the scope of the article should not be restricted to the German–Russian system/s. The sheer number of delete !votes would seem to suggest that such a desire is not present among the community (but then, I'm not sure I'm able to make sense of most of the "delete" arguments, as these seem to be more relevant to the fuzzy article at Cyrillization rather than the well-defined topic ostensibly under discussion). – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a draft at User:-sche/Cyrillization of German. This documents the standard system devised by Rudzhero S. Giliarevski (ru) and Boris A. Starostin (ru) and revised by Dmitry I. Ermolovich (ru) and Irina S. Alexeyeva (ru). Uanfala, please feel free to add Bulgarian information to the draft, if you like. The delete votes seem to have been based on the fact that the current mainspace article is a stub created by a someone known for hoaxes, and to have been made at a time of assumption (now known to be incorrect) that there was no standard system comparable to the Kontsevich system for Cyrillization of Korean (which, contrary to comments above, is an existing article). I suggest that if the current stub is deleted, the more comprehensive and referenced userspace draft get its own discussion. -sche (talk) 21:44, 13 July 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 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Paradise (2018 film)[edit]

Beyond Paradise (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Non notable film, no RS here to substantiate it. Brief mention of it being nominated for something at some minor awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not find reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage relating to the film. ~ Araratic | talk 10:47, 18 July 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. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Carson[edit]

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

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

This article is about a girl who dreams to be an astronaut, and her dad has enough money to try to realize her dream.

However, while the article sais that she's training for an official mission to Mars, the truth is that she's only attending a series of camps with the name "Space" on it, and she's not associated in any way with NASA, other than "paid camps" for kids and teens of course.

So I think that this page should be deleted in respect of the rule 4 of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, since this is an article written by her dad to give visibility to her daughter's dream, which is surely not an encyclopedic content. Not yet. Darius Alnex (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rule 4 of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)". But this article is about a person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets the general notability guideline and has encyclopedic content. To determine whether the content is encyclopedic, we need to see the content itself, not who writes it, or on what purpose. Article Alyssa Carson was deleted by KrakatoaKatie on the ground of G5 (created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block) on 31 July 2017, undeleted and userfied to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by KrakatoaKatie on 1 August 2017, ‎and moved back to Alyssa Carson by Kudpung on 2 August 2017 (see their relevant discussion). The edit history indicates that this page was probably created by a paid editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody), but has been cleaned up and improved. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article and its subject clearly meet all criteria for inclusion. I was involved in the exposure of the disgusting antics of this Orangemoody-style editor who created the article with the express intent of introducing defamatory content about this female minor and then to extort money from the parents to remove it. The parents suffered significant stress and appealed to us for a solution. The original creator was found to have created a series of drafts about women ostensibly for the same purpose. The re-write/clean up was posted to User:Trebprod/Alyssa Carson by KrakatoaKatie for the parents' 'approval' as a gesture to assuage their distress and to keep what is clearly a worthy and notable Wikipedia article.
  Equally clear is that the nominator has not done sufficient research before posting this AfD. Admittedly, with only 15 edits to Wikipedia, he is not authorised to view the deleted and suppressed content, or to be privy to the off-Wiki discussions between CU Katie and myself and investigations leading to the exposure of this individual, the results of which however, are at User talk:Manc1234. I'll say again what I said then in order to keep the vile content under wraps: I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support. Nominator please withdraw this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll lay my admin bit on the line in support" With all due respect, Kudpung, the work you have done in cleaning this article up through trying circumstances (to put it as mildly as possible) appears to have clouded your judgement as to whether it's actually a good idea in the first place. A number of longstanding editors, besides me, have now !voted "delete", and I don't think any of them did so to piss you off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I am am not in the slightest bit concerned at being outvoted - it's extremely rare at AfD but consensus is consensus. The recreation of the article was an IAR for reasons that you are not privileged to see. I'm far more concerned at 1) your taking my comments out of context and 2) your unnecessary and subjective assumption that one would consider the voters are doing so to piss [me] off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think you misunderstood what I was getting it - I was more concerned that somebody might take your accusing the nominator of bad faith and hold it against you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins can't view the diffs either. They've been suppressed/oversighted. A while back admins were given the power to essentially oversight diffs, and when that's done, other admins can't see them. I can see that edits were made, but I am unable to view the 36 deleted edits. Enigma^msg 22:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as obvious WP:GNG with prejudice against dubious nominator. Daask (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are few content issues.Firstly she is not even 18 years to be formally associated with NASA secondly they will not select a person 25 years in advance that is proposed in 2033 .The term “trainee astronaut" is POV" .She is not a NASA astronaut trainee or affiliated with NASA in any formal way that I am aware of except having visited NASA and participated in space camp (which is not run by NASA by the way) They don't identify future astronauts outside of the standard selection process.Unlikeone and say they training to be singer or Football player one can train at home not sure about being an “trainee astronaut" The comments were posted two NASA employees here not saying that is reliable it echos my own point of view .But these are content issues ,I have raised the tag .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)

• Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable.Accesscrawl (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:BLP This fails my child prodigy test in a big way, particularly so given the sprinkling of tags contesting the accuracy of the claims made. She does not have adult accomplishments; she only potentially may eventually have them, and that is all that she is known for. We have of late deleted a number of these articles, and we need to delete this one: we should not be publicizing a kid who stands an extremely high chance of not living up to the potential being claimed for her, and this consideration should trump the relatively limited publicity which is about all there is to work with. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP per Mangoe. The subject is not over 18 years and hence is not formally allowed join astronaut training to be called a “trainee astronaut".The claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and only a few thousand at the most in over 7 Billion people in the world can claim be in actual Astronaut training.It is WP:CRYSTAL but it is a exceptional claim which hinges more towards inaccuracy. If she formally joins Astronaut training it can be recreated and only then can she be called a “trainee astronaut" .Further almost the references are about future aspirations and plans are more News and cannot see any achievements or rather she has really not accomplished anything noteworthy to be Notable and think the subject has no enduring notability of subject at this point unless she gets selected by NASA etc which is not in her hands .There are no admission or entry criteria for any of the Space Camps she attended, nor for participation in the NASA "explore space" passport program . She is only a space enthusiast at this moment as rightly changed by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a promotional biography of a minor who wants to be an astronaut. The best claim of an SNG is WP:ENT, but I doubt that is met. I fundamentally disagree with the claim that GNG requires this type of article be kept, and also disagree that any fallout of the Orangemoody affair can justify keeping this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place to cover ever enthusiastic, aspiring teen who has a passion for one subject or another. The mention of her connection to Mars One sends up a red flag "this is a scam". Events potentially 15 years in the future do not merit coverage in an article. If we put up every aspiring and academically strong high school junior it would overwhelm us, and just add to presentism. At some point Ms Carson may be notable, but that point is in the future, not at present. Not everyone who is mentioned in the media onslaught becomes notable. A while back we had a much more covered individual who had been put forth by his mom as one of the greatest physicics minds ever. This reminds me of that case, but not quite as extreme. If Carson ever actually goes into space, she will be notable. However youngest x, or first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers just do not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:BLP - there are some references there, but looking at her achievements, notability, and impact, her main claim to fame is *wanting* to go to Mars. She hasn't actually *done* anything notable, that I can see...so yes, WP:CRYSTAL Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of the references I can find discuss hypotheticals and aspirations, not notable accomplishments. Newslinger (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article is overly promotional in nature, but it is sourced well. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did a news search and the top hits were the triple whammy of The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail. With not much else other than the same story repeated in 109 other papers, this is a textbook WP:BLP1E. I appreciate the arguments of the first two !votes in this debate, but not having an article per the BLP policy helps the subject and their family by not plastering the information all over the internet until the end of time. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination) for past precedent on this sort of thing - specifically the closing remark "Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue.") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article is in no way "sourced well". Much of what it says is sourced to either primary sources, or not sourced at all, or cited to sources that do not say what it claimed. Additonally, the secondary sources are not the indepth, reliable coverage we look for, especially for biographies of living people. They are light weight human interest artixcles that basically add up to "this teenager might go to mars, so we will write about her, because that is way eisier than writing about people who actual have impacted things, or even than writing about the various plans to go to Mars and analyzing how likely they are to happen." Extraordinary claims need good sourcing, but if you look behind the mirrors, you see this is one of lots and lots of people who have not done anything, but get a little coverage as potentially about to do something. We do not create articles on such people. All the more so when they are under age 18. Beyond this, being overlyy promotional is a good and stanrd reason to delete an article. All the more so in this case since there is no substance behind the promotion. If we look at the claims this becomes clear. She was the first person to visit all 14 NASA visitors centers. Why even mention this at all (I am not convinced the claim is well sourced either). Why is this so special. She also went to muktiple space camps. This is a summer camp for teenagers, and despite the movie does not involve actually going into space. It has been pointed out above these are not NASA sponsored, and this is another place where the article is not only overly promotional, but down right deceptive. She was at Sundance in connection with a film that we lack an article on. She also is claimed to be the youngest appthe International Space University, although even being a graduate is not a sign of notability. The article is built on weak articles, blog posts, primary sources and even a citation to twitter. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To get a feel for the level of sourcing we have, look at this [1]. Carson is one of 200 people here, and just happens to be mentioned. She is called "the 13 year old who will be the first person to step on Mars' soil in 2033". Say what? For all we know, she will not even live until 2033. This is just plain rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we need to be very vigilant in stopping Wikipedia from being used as a platform to build up people. We need to be very vigilant in fighting conflict of interest. If it is true that the subject or a close family member was involved in creating the article, we should delete the article for that reason alone, and wait until someone unrelated to the subject feels they are notable to create a more balanced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The only one of the space camps she went to that I can find any info on is US space camp, in Alabama. According to the article on that camp "more than 750,000 campers have graduated since 1982". So having gone to that camp is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This remains the only page in Wikipedia that even mentions the Advanced Possum Academy. It somewho is not even worth mentioning in the article on Emory Riddle University. The thing is this is a program designed for college and high school students. It is only at most 5 years old. So, Carson is not particularly younger than other people accepted into the program, and it is not a very old program. Add to this that our one source on this was built on a telephone interview and is a pop magazine that does not focus on acuracy, or even making sure they use consistent verb tenses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I came truckin' on down ready to send this one straight into the crapper. But, nope, this one passes GNG based on sources showing. Whether we SHOULD have articles about privileged tweens with dreams of becoming astronauts is entirely another discussion. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there is a question of if we should have articles on privalaged teens whose families pay excessive money for them to go to exciting sounding camps and galavant around from university campus to university campus at programs designed to take the money from these privalaged people, why is it a yes to have this article? This does not pass any logical reading of GNG. Where is one reliable sourced, indepth article that is more than an airy puff piece?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- as per incontrovertible analysis by John Pack Lambert and Pharaoh of the Wizards. A lot can happen in next 15 years when she is actually scheduled for space traveling. Plain case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. 9 out of 10 BLP1E cases make a convincing case of GNG, thats why we have BLP1E policy. Her other achievements don't make her encyclopedic enough to hold a stand alone page in an encyclopedia. Hitro talk 11:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheduled by whom? Her own self-determined personal goals as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meeting GNG (if this article really even meets it) doesn't mean that we have to have an article, particularly if it's overridden by things like a WP:NOT criteria or BLP/BLP1E, especially in the case of a minor. This is one of those cases. ansh666 23:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also various criteria against self-promotionalism, and articles being overly promotional are grounds to delete an article, even if the underlying subject meets some flawed, overly broad, capture another 100 million bio articles all on living people, reading of GNG. Wikipedia is already overly presentist, without us having fluff articles on people who are still minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I had a whole nice chunk all written out, but my Internet is on the fritz (as it always is). Suffice it to say that circumstances change, people change, and lives change. No matter how winsome Miss Carson may be, she might not be the first astronaut on Mars for some myriad reason or another. Moreover, we editors of Wikipedia should not engage in WP:PROMOTION of a possible astronaut trainee candidate; nor are we a WP:CRYSTALBALL: whether she makes it to Mars is not up to us, and we ought not boost her name above that of others. I don't mean to be blunt, but I'm also not too sure her accomplishments are all that notable yet: compared to Jean Piaget, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, or Joan of Arc at the same age, for now she's long on talk, and short on action. (Likewise, her infancy minority is a major issue, especially as this is a BLP.) Anyway, we can re-create this article if and only if she becomes notable for something other than being a possible trainee candidate. In short, per John Pack Lambert, Ansh666, Mangoe, and Power~enwiki. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piaget had actually published in zoology by age 15, although there is no sign these publications would be anywhere near enough to show notability if he had been killed by a bus at age 16. Carson has at best spoken about space and space exploration to other children, a turn of phrase used in her super promotional Mars One promotional guide, never mind that Mars One is a scam to get people who want to travel to space to part with ludicrously low amounts of money to make some Dutch guys a little more well off, and has exactly zero chances of ever actually sending a human to Mars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like PR puff. Not enough notable achievement yet for WP:GNG, but best wishes for her future. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment This is probalby another case of "many adults or too easily swayed to rush to madness by a teenager doing math they can't". A key point is this line from the article on United States Space Camp. "Space Camp was founded in 1982 as an educational camp program for children using the United States space program as the basis to promote math and science to children." Space Camp is not really about going into space, or training astronauts. It is about training youth in math and science, and uses a fun space theme to trick them into learning these subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article makes a big deal about Carson going and studying at the Space Camp in Izmir. A key thing to remember is the longest space camp program at Izmir lasts 6 days. Yes, 6 days. The more I learn, the more laughably ludicrous this whole thing becomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lot of news coverages. Easily passes GNG. Lot of latest news coverages in google news including this as latest https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/teenager-alyssa-carson-could-first-12904011 Farahpoems (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is so flawed it is just plain a lie. Paragraph 2 says she is "currently training to be an astronaut", but in fact she has not been accepted to any actual astronaut training programs. Plus, training for things is not the same as being admitted. The first paragraph has too many conditionals to be useful. In fact, to me the biggest conditional is I am unconvinced that the 2033 NASA expedition to Mars has enough plaining in place for us to have started talking about it as if it is a sure thing. The next paragraph says that she has visited all the NASA visitors centers. I am like what? Can we next great an article on someone who has visted all LDS visitors centers? Or maybe someone who has visted all major science museums in the US? This is the most ludicrous reason to create an article on someone. Yeah right, NASA is going to choose someone to be the first person to go to Mars because they have visited all its visitors centers. I know people today are shallow, absorb information quickly, and do not deliberate on it, but this is super hallow writing. Then the next paragraph shows this is largely based on a previous interview with Teen Vogue. So basically this is all part of magazines and other publications trying to be trendy with teens because they focus on trendy teens. Except this really is trending more towards a show "if you do enough self promotion, someone will write about you." I refuse to have as a rule for GNG "If you got a feel good fluff article in Teen Vogue, you have encyclopedic notability." This is the most flawed and failed reading of both GNG and the general notability guidelines ever. Wikipedia is not the place to rehash every future gazing article ever wrtten on a minor who has done nothing at all of any note. We do not write articles even on people who have written very deeply reasoned PhD dissertations. We don't write articles on high schoolers who have done nothing but go annually of more than annually to 6-day "sapce" camps that focus on teaching math and science, not space piloting skills. If we really do go to Mars in 2033, it will be much more based on the work of engineers who develop multiple needed innovations to make such a trip doable. If there are engineers who have developed such, they may be worth having an article. Not 17-year-olds who go around getting fluff coverage in Teen Vogue, so it can jump on the STEM band wagon so that teens who have never even tried to solve a differential equation, and 12-year-olds who constantly give up on doing math operations involving fractions can pretend they have some STEM knowledge. In paragraph 6 the article claims because she has graduated the Advanced POSSUm program she is qualified to go into space. What? I have read the information from that program, and it does not claim it is training people to go into space. It trains people to be involved in actual real research in high atmosphere studies. It also admits both high school and college students. So Carson being the youngest I want sourced to more than breathless vapid articles. Beyond that, unless every graduate of that program is notable, this is of no merit. "Once astronauts arrive at Mars they’ll have to contend with an extremely hostile environment. There’s no ozone layer, so they’ll need to be shielded from lethal doses of solar radiation." That is one of the most useful things the article says, it was not at all related to what Carson has done, she is not the one who figured this out. The article also neglects to tell us if anyone has solved this problem. If yes, then that person is notable. If no, than who ever can solve it will be notable if we send a mission to Mars. That article is a 13-paragraph example of how magazines do not think teems can read more than a little per paragraph. She is also learning three "extra" languages, Chinese, French and Spanish. Well, being multi-lingual is not a sign of notability. THe last 4 paragraphs are the most substantial, say nothing about Carson, and actually indicate that the notion that she may go to Mars in 2033 is hardly based on anything more than teenaged hype. There is nothing of substance here, and its repeat says a lot more about the poor state of journalism and the lack of actual journalistic research and the ease that self-promotion can manipulate journalistic systems than anything of substance. Carson has done absolutely nothing of true note. It cheapens the acomplishments of actual women astronauts, women scientists and women engineers that people create such vapid articles about someone who has done nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per ignore all rules. This is a GNG keep on the face of it, but there is absolutely no way that an article about a young minor whose sole claim to fame is well publicized participation in space camps should be the subject of encyclopedic coverage. Nothing good can come of this article. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an IAR argument. We really need to get away from this notion that meeting GNG means a subject must have an article (or must be kept at AfD). That's really not supported by the guideline. Sure, it's usually a good indicator of suitability, but it's hardly the only consideration in play. ansh666 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a long standard of GNG that interviews do not add to notability. The "articles" about Carson are really just interviews disguised as something else. They do not represent examples of 3rd-party sources, but of lazy journalists writing vapid articles to appeal to a negotiation of what they think teens want, and the hype for STEM, but hyping someone who has gone to multiple math and science camps, which have the sexy souding name "space camp", and ignoring anything of substnace about this, showing a general lack of indepdence, or fact checking. These are not actually 3rd-party sources that add towards GNG, they are disguised interviews that can not be used as the basis of a reliable article, and are actual show that the subject does not currently pass GNG ever, so a realistic reading of the sources and GNG clearly shows that Carson does not pass it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Salt Deny. This sort of thing needs to stop. I have thought about starting WP:PRODIGY for some time now, and it really needs to be done, but I haven't carved out the time. This is just another in the list to add to the pile. Writing articles on living prodigious children is simply not something Wikipedia should be doing without a MUCH higher bar than the normal and weak "notability" rules. The media is just too culpable in WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how Carson even counts as a prodigy. She is more of a super hyped person than a prodigy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After considering a WP:BLPMINOR in the past, I'm happy to simply apply WP:IAR in the rare situations like this where there is a biography of a minor without any claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What course of action are you advocating? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Contrary to some claims, there are not a ton of high quality sources in the article. The fact that the most notable thing she did was be in a camp is telling. Not enough notability to keep. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-promotional with no real accomplishments. There seems to be an effort to make this person go viral with ridiculous posts about how she is "expecting to earn a Ph.D. in astrobiology" while not even completing high school yet. IZ99uni (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sorry, but this is just silly. Attending a bunch of space-themed summer camps is in no way a notable event, nor is going to all NASA Visitor Centers. If that was the standard for notability, then all boy and girl scouts should get an article too. Also, this "Advanced Possum Academy" seems to be just a five-day program that was started in the Fall 2007 with an admission cost of $3900 with no actual requirements for admission. A Google search also shows that there are only mentions from external sources of this program are simply just a long series of blog articles regurgitating that Alyssa Carson was the youngest person to attend it. There is simply no established noteworthiness to this program. As far as I can tell, her only possible claim for notability is that she received coverage from news websites and blogs for wanting to be the first person to land in Mars. To be blunt: so what? The Daily Mail is literally flooded with off-beat/general interest articles covering (and sensationalizing) stories from regular people. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not entirely relevant, but frankly it seems fairly obvious that there is a bit of self-promotion going on here. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Media references are fluff and have no depth. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hope she achieves each of the goals she has reiterated to each audience and reporter. Until then it is WP:TOSOON. This appears to be a very driven young lady who is either herself or has a parent or someone else who is very skilled at promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for that promotion. She, and apparently her family, are very adept at promoting her. Her father is the owner of Pelican Broadcasting, a local sports cable channel and radio station in her hometown of Baton Rouge.

Citation overkill (do we need 2 citations for the sentence identifying the high school she attends?) brings notability into question. The laundry list of media appearances is questionable as well. These are red flag seen in similarly promotional articles.

The primary claim to notability here is this young lady's enthusiasm for spaceflight, her (and her father's) well traveled drive to experience as many camps and workshops as possible, and above all her goal of becoming an astronaut and traveling to Mars.

Media coverage is numerous but lacks depth and substance. Each article or appearance repeats the same bullets from her bio along with a few quotes. She has no affiliation with NASA. As others have noted, is not part of any NASA astronaut training program. NASA is very \specific about affiliations. Even NASA contractors are very careful about not even implying an affiliation that is not there. The blue flight suit is a costume and the helmet a toy available at any NASA Visitor Center gift shop.

Her participation in various Space Camps is also unremarkable. 750k have attended the camp in Huntsville, AL alone. Returning multiple times is not unusual. "Ambassadors" for the Mars One program promote this commercial venture, nothing more. Mars One also does not have the best reputation within the aerospace community. Her (and presumably her family's) promotional skills were probably very attractive to the Mars One program.

While she did receive some attention from NASA, this was not for anything on her resume but instead for being the first to complete the NASA Passport program. While this may have an impressive sound, it is a tourism promotion program similar to one created by the National Park Service. Participants receive stamps for each NASA visitor center they travel to. She was recognized as the first to visit all 14 centers across 9 states and was rewarded with a trip to the National Air and Space Museum to share her goal of traveling to Mars. This does little to establish notability here.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I also see this article has been translated to the Arabic, Catalonian, Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, presumably from earlier versions of this article with even more factual errors including the claim that her occupation is "astronaut". Results of this discussion (either way) should be noted on those pages as well.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional piece. She has not done anything notable yet. If she accomplishes any of her "dreams", she will one day become notable. Attending various space camps does not make one notable. Plenty of references, but the references don't actually assert notability if you read them. Enigma^msg 22:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is grossly self-promotional in nature when you read it critically and it is misleading. The articles cited are feel good puff pieces with little journalistic integrity. I don't want to parrot what has already been said stated above in regards to the quality of the references. There is nothing notable about her achievements at this point in time. This article lacks any real substance. "She is also the youngest applicant to International Space University." Even if she was noteworthy, this fact most certainly is nothing more than pointless trivia. In any group, *someone* has to be the youngest, and being the youngest applicant isn't an achievement in this case. She isn't the youngest by a significant amount of time either. While I sincerely wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors and I hope that one day she will be notable enough to reinstate this Wikipedia page, as of now she has yet to achieve anything truly unique and notable.

There are so many high schoolers with ambitions, which is great, but there are too many hurdles in the near future that statistically a large portion of those kids will not overcome. Just consider all the college freshmen who are "pre-med" until they take organic chemistry: there is not a great deal of difference between those freshmen and Alyssa. Obviously her family is successful in promoting her giving the barrage of media attention she's getting, and that's good for her, but Wikipedia should not be part of that promotional platform. This article seems to primarily serve as an instrument of faux credibility in promoting her to those media outlets. These kinds of articles are a threat to Wikipedia's integrity.Bearpics (talk) 04:00, 17 July 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 deleted as G12 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose rosette virus[edit]

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

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

Appears to be blatant plagiarism from this website: https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Rose_Rosette_Virus.

It also appears that the user that created this article, User:Colored, had created this same article 10 days earlier and the article was speedily deleted for plagiarism and copyright infringement of another website. I'm not sure how I can nominate for speedy deletion, however. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a tool called Twinkle which allows you to two-click nominate things for CSD along with some other features. I G12'd the article. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:54, 10 July 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. Consensus was that the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument was invalid Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Riches[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The dozen or so references are primary sources, brief mentions, and generally unreliable sources. Her songwriting and other work has not provided any lasting notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, fails WP:MUSICBIO and insubstantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks reliable sources. Snowycats (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article may fail WP:MUSICBIO but passes WP:GNG 2405:205:A049:9F38:EC0F:BD3C:D01B:3E08 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUSICBIO 1 = GNG. Exactly which sources discuss the subject in detail? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. The person doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from Hillsong Church. Newslinger (talk) 13:05, 17 July 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 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lerner (environmentalist)[edit]

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

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

WP:BASIC. An internet search reveals no sources which discuss this person beyond incidental coverage. Daask (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the GNG and NPROF. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Sources not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as above. Insubstantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. He is a founder of a cancer treatment center called Commonweal, not the magazine with the same name, Commonweal, or for that matter, any other Commonweal that is notable. A moron in a hurry might insist he's notable due to the confusion. There's no evidence he's passing the prof test, since his fellowships are extremely common, pardon the pun. Most of his biographical information comes from self-created web sources. Much of the information in fact fails verification. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNOW. Snowycats (talk) 04:16, 15 July 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 Rintatolimod. Sandstein 12:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oragen[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Natureium (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Every chemical compound has at least one reference, and Google Scholar lists https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb35938.x and one other. Since there aren't more references than these, either a different name is in current use or research into them has been abandoned, but once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rintatolimod - Oragen® is just an oral-delivery formulation of Ampligen®, the proprietary name for Rintatolimod ("Hemispherx has also developed an oral version of the drug (Oragen®), which is undergoing preclinical evaluation." [2]). We don't need a separate page for an alternative formulation of the same drug (particularly given that it was in preclinical trials in 1993 and still in preclinical trials in 2004, making me doubt it ever progressed beyond that point). There can be no question of the mentions I have found providing independent notability - most of what I am finding originates with Hemispherx. I would suggest 'merge' but our existing article doesn't have anything worth merging, and we actually already refer to Oragen in the last sentence of the rintatolimod article, just not by name. [As an aside, it looks to me like parts of the rintatolimod article rely too much on company-generated material.] Agricolae (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hemispherx Biopharma should be redirected there too. The existing article consists of WP:ROUTINE business reporting, and stories about Ampligen®/Rintatolimod. As best I can tell, this is the equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT, that the company's sole claim to notability is this drug. Agricolae (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Agricolae: Nominated separately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemispherx Biopharma Daask (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rintatolimod per Agricolae. Daask (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect though a delete might be reasonable. I don't see secondary coverage, though some journal articles I can't read may qualify. I'm not sure this is more notable than (several) companies of this name. The article's claim They are undergoing pre-clinical (in-vitro) trials is almost certainly inaccurate at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 17 July 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Institute[edit]

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

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

Article has been around for over 10 years, yet remains almost entirely unsourced. That indicates that there are unlikely to be sources available to demonstrate its notability. Searching for sources finds little independent coverage beyond a few blogs and videos from students. It fails GNG and NCORP and it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". RexxS (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article has only two references, both of which are external links and one of which is a link to the institute's own website. Vorbee (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those voting on the outcome should examine the references added:
    1. https://palmettobusinessdaily.com/stories/511442182-cost-of-college-was-unchanged-for-all-students-at-international-diving-institute – a two sentence note in Palmetto Business Daily, a non-notable website that reports any piece of information given to them concerning South Carolina businesses: "We actively encourage news leads and tips on all deals no matter the size." Not useful in determining notability.
    2. http://seabeemagazine.navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/04/20/seabee-dive-detachment-hones-underwater-welding-skills/ - a good source, but the focus is on 'Construction Diving Detachment Alpha', not the IDI. However, it is indicative of notability, although not the "in-depth coverage" that GNG requires.
    3. http://cdiver.net/news/international-diving-institute-opens-world-possibilities-commercial-diving/ – a good source that does provide decent coverage of IDI. Indicative of notability.
    4. http://www.palmsc.org/archives/806 – an event calendar on a blog from Palm Charter High School, "Palmetto Academy for Learning Motorsports", with a single sentence: "Rick Kralovic’s Welding class traveled to Charleston, SC and toured the underwater training facility Tuesday December 6th.". Absolutely worthless for any referencing purpose whatsoever, and certainly no value in meeting GNG.
    5. https://www.aws.org/education/page/underwater – a directory of companies involved in underwater welding. Compilations like these are specifically excluded from counting toward notability by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) #Examples of trivial coverage.
  • I'm impressed by the cdiver.net source, and to a lesser extent by the Seabee source. The others are pure dross, IMHO, inserted simply to try to make the article appear better sourced than it really is. Folks should only be voting keep if they believe that the two reasonable sources are sufficient to meet the requirement for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article by Defense Visual Information Distribution Service: [3]. WCBD-TV local news article about how it is a place where people can train for high-paying jobs. They list 9 industries, and the first video is a three-minute television video segment from their newscast on Commercial Diving (IDI) [4] Rebecca Ziegler article of her training at IDI - California Diver [5] Welding Journal has coverage on a student for IDI [6] College Is for Suckers: The First College Guide You Should Read book about vocational training (reviewed by Kirkus) briefly listing IDI as among the three largest schools in the US for commercial diving. I cite this because it's a secondary source book that's far removed from the locals. [7] LeisurePro (cited in some Wikipedia articles) lists it among the best commercial diving schools [8] I would treat this as a vocational / training school rather than the academic one, so WP:ORGCRIT applies over WP:NSCHOOL. Seabee one is okay, it's showing that the US Navy is using IDI to train their UCT-2 team. The Palmetto ones are light coverage but pinpoint when the institute was established, and track their tuition, and the CDiver and California Diver articles are in-depth. The Counton2 (WCBD-TV) one is in-depth. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one's from International Diving Schools Association which ran a feature on the school in its newsletter/journal [9] In-depth for sure; I've added a bunch of detail on its facilities from this article. Also finding early snapshots from Better Business Bureau and other company sites back when it was just a dive shop and being established. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) updated 02:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been identified to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepEnough sources to satisfy me on GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, now with additional RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 12 July 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. Consensus for deletion is established. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hicks-Beach[edit]

Nicholas Hicks-Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The sources come nowhere near to showing he meets notability criteria. 1 is his agents page and 2 and 3 don't mention him. Nothing found in a before search that show sufficient notability Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Contested deletion==

• Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Hicks-Beach is a recognized industry figure with a verifiable body work that has been recognized as notable and worthy of documenting by Wikipedia beforehand. Writers will far smaller and/or less notable filmographies have been allowed articles here before, such as Cameron McAllister and Andrew Rattenbury, and there seems to be no issue.SavageEditor (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is judged independently of others and the sources that have been added have to show notability. If Hicks-Beach is a recognised figure then there should be sources to show this. You have not added any. Please read WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I think you were right about Cameron McAllister and Andrew Rattenbury they are no more notable than this person so I have nominted for deletion too. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. Unable to locate any significant biographical information in reliable secondary sources; most were trivial mentions such as [10][11][12][13]. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Magnolia677. Daask (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources come no where near establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Magnolia677.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Lacking notability Snowycats (talk) 04:16, 15 July 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Geekdom Con[edit]

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

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

Local (Philadelphia area) fan convention. To quote the PROD tag removed by the article creator, "Very close to CSD A7 - but only local references asserting importance of this event are shown. Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT." Calton | Talk 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has credible sources from state papers and national anime websites.--Gameinfirmary (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Note: editor is creator of the article[reply]

• See phrasing above. re: "local sources". And the "national anime websites" are simple event listings and straight-up press releases. --Calton | Talk 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are enough for WP:GNG and WP:DEPTH:

1. https://technical.ly/delaware/2015/11/16/thy-geekdom-con-innovation-week/
2. https://www.delawareonline.com/story/life/2015/11/12/geekdomunitesforonedayconinwilmington/75291430/
3. http://www.delawarebusinesstimes.com/geekdom-con-ii-grows-stronger-each-year/

Coverage seems WP:DIVERSE. Daask (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep RS is a bit thin, I think borderline keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:00, 12 July 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 12:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeMel Humes[edit]

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

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

Fails notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG. Some of the projects he worked on may be notable but he's not the subject of any of the references. Previously speedy deleted, may require salting. Ifnord (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was submitted as a draft and an expert from Wikipedia approved it after checking everything, @Firestone2018: @Boleyn:. I read WP:MUSICBIO it states that, Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
• Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
• Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
• Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
• Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
• Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Now you can compare, the subject meets all of this criteria and even his Categories are available on Wikipedia. Calabond (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:GNG.157.37.101.237 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Admins may want to check out the history of this nomination. The nom above says that the article was speedy deleted previously, as if that should be relevant now, but a look at the first nomination shows that it was a speedy G7 requested by the article's creator. The current version started out in draft space and several editors collaborated and moved it into the main space, showing that the article was deemed worthy of WP. There was also no reason given for the one "strong delete" vote above except for name-dropping a couple of policies. I see the need for expansion, not deletion. Sources are strong enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with the above comments.100.35.103.125 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC) — 100.35.103.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Reply:There are special categories on Wikipedia with his name, Most of his songs have independent pages as well and he clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO.Calabond (talk) 16:17, 11 July 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 Adelaide Football Club#AFL Women's team. Sandstein 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's)[edit]

Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable award, the only independent possibly reliable source I could find was "The Advertiser" on the "Adelaide Now" website, which mentioned the award once. Source from the club and the AFL aren't independent. Fram (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's). I also found a source at The Women's Game, which is basically the Australian female sports website. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons at that AFD were wrong (i.e. not policy-based), plus there was used "but all these awards have an article", which of course no longer applies when two or more are up for deletion. Thanks for that source, but one short source from a sport website is not the multiple reliable independent sources required by WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm still a bit unsure about these articles and whether they should be redirected or kept, so I'll wait to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) to see where consensus is at. Just thought I'd add a bit more clarity about the sources for this article; there are dedicated articles about the award by The Advertiser for the two that have been awarded (not just one time mentions) [14] and [15] in addition to the aforementioned source mentioned by 4TheWynne and InDaily. Flickerd (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Adelaide Football Club for the same reasons as the Melbourne one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Adelaide Football Club#AFL Women's team per WP:TOOSOON and consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's). Fine to recreate if/when more independent sources are available. Flickerd (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Absence. Per WP:ATD, redirecting is a stronger argument than straight up deletion. If the band is deleted, those redirects will be deleted anyway. SoWhy 10:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riders of the Plague[edit]

Riders of the Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG 1 source that is user generated content. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have nominated the other 2 albums of this group for deletion but as they were not created at the same time or by the same user I did not bundle but they are all 3 in the same vein.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Your Grave
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy Unbound

Dom from Paris (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history as valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning for a keep? Does it meet WP:NALBUM Dom from Paris (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The band may be nn itself, so unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @Domdeparis:, I am indifferent between Keep and "Redirect with history", so long as the history remains in tact with this valid search term. If the band is non notable, then it too should be nominated for AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that but normally a keep !vote even if it is tagged onto a redirect !vote should be motivated by guidelines or policy or may be ignored and as per WP:DISCUSSAFD please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Absence. SoWhy 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Unbound[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG of the 2 sources one doesn't even mention this album and the other is a blog review. Nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have nominated the other 2 albums of this group for deletion but as they were not created at the same time or by the same user I did not bundle but they are all 3 in the same vein.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Your Grave
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riders of the Plague

Dom from Paris (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect with history - Keep, or redirect with history as valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning for keep? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Domdeparis:, I am indifferent between Keep and "Redirect with history", so long as the history remains in tact with this valid search term. If the band is non notable, then it too should be nominated for AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that but normally a keep !vote even if it is tagged onto a redirect !vote should be motivated by guidelines or policy or may be ignored and as per WP:DISCUSSAFD please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:39, 10 July 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 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 (British Board of Film Classification)[edit]

18 (British Board of Film Classification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is redundant as it's already covered in British Board of Film Classification and isn't notable enough to be included (why does an individual rating need its own page? should other ratings get their own pages too?) Kylesenior (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Redundancy (or overlap) is not a reason to delete if this article about a sub-topic (a specific rating under a system) is explored more in depth than the system's article would do. The system's article does not have an "18 certificate" section or subsection to look up for coverage focused on that certificate alone. Now the question is how much the 18 certificate has been discussed to qualify as non-trivial coverage that can be summarized in a standalone article. This article's sourcing is not extensive at all, but we should at least look to see what exists out there about this certificate and its historical and cultural connotations. Judging from what I've read in the past, it seems like Wikipedia could easily have an article about MPAA's R rating alone. Obviously the BBFC's 18 certificate is not an exact parallel, but I think there would likely be similar coverage relating to audience access and profitability. Just because Wikipedia has not had rating-focused articles does not directly mean it should not have them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It is not implausible that we could have an article about each rating but History of British film certificates covers this pretty well so I don't think we absolutely have to do so. My main concern is verifiability. The article is poorly referenced and could well have an OR problem. Better references could move it to a weak keep for me so I certainly don't think that it is intrinsically irredeemable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to British Board of Film Classification#Current certificates per past consensuses involving parental rating systems and individual ratings (for instance, TV parental guidelines (US) with TV-MA). Doesn't need a breakout. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect BOVINEBOY2008 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are informative pages on both the 18 and R18 classification. To incorporate all this into the main page would risk overwhelming it with detail and unbalancing the content. A certain amount of redundancy is necessary. It would help to have more explicit links to signpost the subpages.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What else is there to expand on? It's an adults-only rating. Most of the article is unsourced textwalls about film cuts, bloody stuff, obvious items such as A Serbian Film needing additional cuts to actually appear on a screen, and inane micromanagement of sex scenes. The text can easily be cut down considerably and remove the fine and minute detail and merged into the BBFC article. Nate • (chatter) 08:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (perhaps a little weak, mind), as I feel the article justifies its own inclusion. I would not want to see a merger and redirecting would not serve any purpose. The article could do with a cleanup, but I don't feel it's redundant or useless. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the 18 cert in the UK has enough standalone notability for its own article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above - Enough standalone notabailty for an article, Plenty of soucres on Google, Passes GNG easily. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 17 July 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corbat[edit]

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

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

Not quite sure if it meets notability. There isn't any references about his deeds outside of information about the guy. A lot of content on the page has been tagged as citation needed. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG. Multiple sources about Corbat specifically, not just Citigroup in general, including WSJ, Reuters, CNBC, NY Times (Dealbook) and Business Insider. This makes sense, since he's the CEO of such a large company. I was expecting to need to demonstrate notability by patching together isolated mentions in various articles about Citigroup, but with so many dedicated articles on Corbat himself, I see no reason to delete. I genuinely don't understand the complaint that the references only include " information about the guy". What else do you want them to include? MarginalCost (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interpreting it wrong. I thought that he needs to have done something to be notable, not just hold position. Also, many of the content on his life and career sections have ((citation needed)) tagged. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article can pass using either the biography-specific guidelines you linked to, or using the General notability guidelines, which is specifically mentioned in the sentence right before the section you linked to, and this subject passes the GNG easily.

I also agree with Icewhiz below that the article's tone is not overly promotional (certainly not enough to merit the 8 separate cleanup tags currently on it). Yes, it lists his various responsibilities through his career, but does so in a fairly boring and neutrally-worded way for the most part.

There are two "citation needed" tags in the article, only the second of which is of any real import. (There were three at the time of your nomination, but I referenced one of them at the time of my original !vote). They do not change the core notability of the subject, and the article would still stand on its own perfectly fine if the sentences were removed. Deletion is not cleanup. MarginalCost (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've removed the uncited claim about social clubs, and also removed the cleanup notices. See the talk page discussion to discuss these specific cleanup concerns, keep notability discussion at this AFD. MarginalCost (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think that looks good. Initially the article seem to be original research with the 3 citation needed tags. Really 3? I thought there was more. And I might have misunderstood notability to think that the person have to be notable on his own right and not for his position.

Another concern is that one of the editors have disclosed their connection with the subject and no doubt is paid for that. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does have to be notable in his own right; notability is not inherited. What I and the other keep voters are saying is that the multiple reliable and independent sources which give significant coverage to the subject are evidence of that notability per the general notability guidelines. No one is saying that all CEO's are notable. Now if you're concerned about the conflict of interest editing, find the offending portions and remove them or ask for a source. But given the state of sourcing and lack of overly promotional phrasing, deletion isn't the appropriate remedy. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He may be notable, but at the moment it reads like a CV published by the company he works for. If it can't be made less promotional, I will vote to delete and start again from scratch. There's probably a COI somewhere in the history, if not more than one. Deb (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 02:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The CEO of Citigroup, a 168 Billion dollar market cap company, clearly meets GNG as evident in a BEFORE. Article ins't overly promotional - some bits and ends could use cleanup, but it is not too bad.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came here because of the college football reference. Just based on that, he would likely not be notable--but why check? The CEO of Citgroup generates enough press to surpass WP:GNG and is worthy of inclusion. The college football information is a good entry into the article of an already well-established notable individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG criteria Snowycats (talk) 04:18, 15 July 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 12:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greymen: A Contactee's Tale[edit]

Greymen: A Contactee's Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet to be released film that fails WP:NFF and WP:NFILM. Filming will not begin until July, so the article fails WP:NFF by default, and the film itself has yet to be released or generate any coverage, so WP:NFILM and GNG are failed as well. My attempt [16] to move the article to the draftspace for incubation was reverted by the article creator, so deletion through AfD is the only option. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON as film is not notable yet as it needs significant coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:TOOSOON - No RS Snowycats (talk) 04:18, 15 July 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. You can request userfication at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukinebo Dare[edit]

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

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

Not notable, doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO Mahveotm (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected officers in a state needs to pass the general notability criteria, this is not even a commissioner, but an assistant to the governor which is always not uniform across states. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate the concerns raised about the article, I want to request that the article be moved to the draftspace so that it can be improved before publishing. Preciousayara (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi preciousayara, I don't want you to get discouraged by this nomination because I think you're doing a great job, especially on Niger Delta articles. Just a little more explanation, according to WP:POLITICIAN government appointees at federal and state level are mostly considered notable. This includes federal and state chief justice and other main statewide and federal offices. If this was a commissioner, I might have voted keep, even with minimal coverage. Unlike commissioners, governors are at liberty to create and uncreate special advisers and assistants without getting consent from the legislature. Another issue is the replication and clash of power, for example the special adviser to the governor on sports is still answerable to the sport commission, which is supervised by the commissioner for sports. At federal level, all special advisers usaully pass GNG, so there is usually no need for WP:NPOLITICIAN. Again her office is not one that will stand the test of time if another government comes on board, besides if we set the precedence of allowing assistants/advisers to state governors based on SNG, not GNG, Wikipedia will be filled with so many under referenced and unnotable individuals. The above is my interpretation, so i can understand others disagree. What you can do now is to look for more significant coverage on her or her impact as SSA, then maybe she may pass GNG, but presently am not seeing that.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:12, 3 July 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 13:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Lands[edit]

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

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

Seems not the be a widespread term. Other than one book, I don't see any other sources using this term. IMO, to be encyclopedic, it would have to be a common classification used by multiple sources. Given that we already have articles on the individual islands, I don't see any need to group them together like this.

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of Islands in the Outer Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a use of Outer Lands ("Block Island is part of the Outer Lands region, a coastal archipelago,...") Less helpfully, this appears to be only a blog. This page also refers to the Outer Lands. I think this is enough to show that the Outer Lands name is used by a wider group than the book's author. I added the book as a reference to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean, those are all really weak sources. The first one might be consider along the lines of a blog too. The only reliable source is the book.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both: As neologism at best, per WP:NEO. Like the nom, I agree that there's no sign that this is a widespread term used in reliable sources, and I want more than a single author's neologism for it. Two or three blogsites don't cut it; show me strong cites from the likes of the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, New York Times and the like. The same applies to the notion that this is a notable geographical topic, as Pharos believes: if that's the case, then where are the sources discussing it, and do they do so using this name? Ravenswing 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All references I can find seem to stem from a single book. Maybe the book deserves an article, but this term doesn't. --Calton | Talk 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The name is not a very common one, but the geographic topic is notable. It's not about the name, which is in use but not popular. It's the archipelagic region of the Atlantic coastal plain and terminal moraine itself that is notable, and it is referred to in a number of geographical and natural history contexts. I started this article 12 years ago, and I think it does bear improving with more sources, but I think it is worth salvaging.--Pharos (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If the topic is notable, where are the sources that talk about it? If the name is "not a very common one", why is it being used instead of a common one, as the claim that topic is notable implies exists? --Calton | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not finding much in the literature that discusses these islands and the cape as a grouping, historically or culturally, other than the Sterling source. There is some geological discussion of the region as a whole, though the islands and the cape were formed by different terminal moraines at different times. The best: [17], [18]. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND, although sourcing is not great. However, I don't see Wiki materially improved as the result of a deletion here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: ... the text of which is "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." (emphasis mine) This would suggest the article fails WP:GEOLAND. Ravenswing 04:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've done the same as Calton. The only reference I've found to the name references that one book discussed in the article. SportingFlyer talk 08:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a geology thing, of terminal moraines (sp?) from glaciers. It is useful to understand that Long Island through Cape Cod are formed the same way. I don't know how else to refer to these. It would be okay to move/rename to a different technical name if there was a different term from the geology literature, or some "common name", but that would be for discussion at the article's Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that name these particular islands apart from the Sterling book? If they are notable as a group in geologic sources, we should rename the page to the name given by those sources. I'm a firm delete since the only available source is that one book. It's also interesting Cape Cod is included, since it's only technically an "island" due to the building of a canal, which suggests to me there's something odd going on with this particular definition. SportingFlyer talk 06:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Continuing from my comment/vote ("Keep") before. It's a geology thing. It was covered in high school earth science class I think. I don't know, many years later, what the high school textbook was. I am not sure that "Outer Lands" term was used, but I don't recall a different one, and the concept was clear that these islands and peninsula (Cape Cod) were formed the same way, and that was a bit of an "Aha" moment making sense of the world. It is amazing how short is the time since glaciers were hypothesized to have carved their ways in the Alps and brought otherwise inexplicable huge boulders to rest in strange places. And it has been a nanosecond since plate tectonics was conceived of. --Doncram (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Come now, Doncram. You're not at all a Wikipedia rookie. You know that the only way an article can be sustained on a subject is by producing multiple reliable sources giving that subject "significant coverage." You know that "I read it in some high school textbook years ago" does not remotely cut it as an answer; those sources cannot be merely alleged to exist, but must be proven to exist, and in nearly two weeks now no one's managed to do so. If you did read about the concept of a terminal moraine, by contrast ... there already is a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ravenswing 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so about "the only way"; there are lots of topics which are presumed notable, sometimes implicitly on basis that off-line sources must exist, including any populated place and any secondary school (although disputed). I am not checking whether Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) has already been argued about above or not.
• Note that there is no way the article should be outright deleted, because Terminal moraine#Examples could serve as a redirect target as a decent alternative to deletion, which we should always strive for. Ravenswing pointed to that article, and it does already mention the Outer Lands. I still prefer "Keep" however as this is a pretty major geological feature, vastly larger than numerous small landforms we accept under geo notability grounds. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect, the information about outerlands in that article is unsourced too.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the past week or so, I have added many new sources that talk about the reality of this major geographical feature, and also several alternative terms that have been used in various sources. The question of notability is about the geographical feature itself (which has been demonstrated), not about the popularity of a particular name for it.--Pharos (talk) 08:05, 17 July 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 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ehrmantraut[edit]

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

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

Was deleted through AfD 3 months ago. This article suffers from the same issue... not a single shred of real-world significance of the CHARACTER. The only real-world significance is of the show, individual episodes, and the actor's performance of the character. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Yes, the article needs improvement, but the character is notable, and the article should be kept, based on notability. Deletion is not a valid answer. He was a major character in BB and still is in BCS, two critically acclaimed shows. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was Speedy keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Until the article has been expanded enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that Jonathan Banks' portrayal of the character has garnered notable awards and/or nominations warrants a standalone article for it. A BB/BCS editor should cite particular episodes to add credence, where possible. — Wyliepedia @ 04:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:47, 11 July 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Fine Art[edit]

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

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

Shamelessly promotional, and sourced to press releases and artsy, a notoriously unreliable source.

• [19] is an interview with uncredited artsy staff with one of their advertisers. It's a "case study" in disguise, not independent reporting.
• [20] is a commercial listing
• [21] is press release, republished by a real-estate magazine
• [22] co-star is a real-estate news site, the article a regurgitated press release (the same quote appears in multiple sources)
• [23] The standard writes "Eden Fine Art, which has exhibited works by such leading lights as Andy Warhol and Dorit Levinstein". OK, that made me laugh. Dorit Levinstein is not quite on par with Andy Warhol. Anyway, Eden doesn't represent the estate of Andy Warhol. They may have bought something at auction and resold it.
• [24] the culture trip is user-contributed content, not a reliable source
• [25] cls is a manufacturer of lighting fixtures
• [26] artsy is not a reliable source
• [27] prnewswire dissemniates press releases
• [28] is paid content
• [29] not sure what to make of this. kulturehub has never been used as a source for any wikipedia article. the article is a description of a birthday party/reception with media provided by the subject. Doubt that this is independent reporting.
• [30] amp3pr is a PR agency
• [31] more birthday news, undated and uncredited, this time with "exclusive photos we snapped at the Alec Monopoly exhibition", and featuring a youtube video uploaded by Eden. Doubt that this is independent reporting. Those "exclusive photos" photos have exif tags that shows they were made years before the birtday party took place.
• [32] doesn't mention the subject other than that "Alec Monopoly is flying across the world with Eden Fine Art to tag the French Alps"
• [33] is an online magazine that publishes event announcements. Eden gets a mention as his gallery, but nothing more.
• [34] artsy is not a reliable source
• [35] bellesdemeures is a website that advertises luxury homes
• [36] artsy is not a reliable source
• [37] is a "luxury magazine" that republishes press releases
• [38] is the blog of a hotel
• [39] artsy is not a reliable source

Vexations (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• artsy, a notoriously unreliable source

  You're referring its listing content, yes? Not editorial? I don't see any threads at RSN czar 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artsy has a mix of content. Their magazine has articles that have a byline and are clearly identified as editorial (their URL starts with https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial. That's not a problem. The bit that affects us most, I think is the artists section, https://www.artsy.net/artists which is designed to look neural and independent, but is really a platform for galleries to sell works. As https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships helpfully explains: Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx just wanted to confirm czar 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly created for promotional reasons. If the topic is notable, someone else will write objectively about it sooner or later. Deb (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Vexation's analysis, but I also want to put a stake in the ground that I think this effort to purge galleries under NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq is a perfect example of this. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had.

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 13:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Ternyik[edit]

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

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

Small town mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Florence OR is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate that Wilbur Ternyik should be considered a special case over and above most other mayors of most other places this size. Every mayor who exists at all could always show two obituaries and an exit interview in the local media, so that's not enough coverage in and of itself to make a smalltown mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've begun to add content and citations supporting his notability with his role in the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, which led to legislation protecting the entire Oregon Coast. More sources are available off-line, but IRL I haven't time this week to get to the library. Others may be able to help this week? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to be able to source that work to media coverage, not to the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission's own self-published content about itself, before it counted as a notability booster. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked at the Talk page of WikiProject Oregon. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above and per nom. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 21:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added to the content of the article. I agree Ternyk does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, but I believe the added sources support WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage is all to local and often not indepdent of Ternyik at all. Nothing adds to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: !Voters should take note of the continuing expansion of the article, incorporating more sources. Early participants in this discussion seem to have mistakenly concluded that Ternyik's status as mayor was intended as a component of the claim for notability. His significance lies primarily in his leadership in coastal planning, which influenced Oregon's landmark land use legislation; his influence extended beyond Oregon's borders as well. The "local sources" argument advanced above is not based in any Wikipedia policy; if a source is reliable, it can contribute to notability. Regardless, the sources go well beyond merely "local." The Register-Guard is one of the premier papers in the state (consult the Wikipedia article linked), and contains a more in-depth writeup than those currently cited in the article. The Oregonian was up until very recently the most widely-circulated paper in the Pacific Northwest. Ternyik is also present in a variety of scholarly articles and a few books. Before nominating an article for deletion, it's worthwhile to conduct some basic searches and check in with the primary authors. -Pete Forsyth (talk)

The only Oregonian source in the article is his obituary which wasn't even written by a staff member, so it's not independent of the subject. SportingFlyer talk 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to do your own research; adding sources to the article takes time. Some Oregonian dates to consider: March 22, 1959; October 25, 1968 (passing mention, supporter of Wayne Morse re-election); September 19, 1971; January 19, 1972; April 19, 1975; February 23, 1980; March 22, 1986; etc. etc. There are about 30 hits in the Oregonian on a basic Newsbank search. However, as I argued above, this is hardly necessary when there are multiple mentions in local papers, the Register Guard, scholarly references, book mentions, etc. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC) (Sorry if that was a bit testy -- I do agree that an obituary is not the best source. But much better sources are not at all hard to find, many have been added to the article since the AFD started already, but that point remains unacknowledged. Anyway, I'll get back to building the article. There are plenty of other excellent source materials to incorporate, and I think my time is better spent on that than on this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

• Keep - but it needs to have a clearly stated connection between his coastal land use advocacy and the larger context state-wide and beyond. YBG (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think he easily meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete borderline notable at best and highly promotional. All the arguments above trying to show how important he is are really showing how much publicity he has managed to acquire for his local activities. Ths is at attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience, but wp should not be doing that. There's no indication of the necessary broader influencew to support it. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to modify this, after re-reading Pete Forsyth's comments..

• Draftify for improvements Probably borderline notability, and the article has an effect of being promotional. It reads like an attempt to bring his local publicity to a wider audience. Unfortunately , the prevalence of promotional writing in local politics articles (and in other areas in WP), can lead to articles unintentionally following that style. We have to judge the article, not the intent, in determining whether to keep it, but recognizing the intent can lead to a different solution--purely promotional writing from a promotional intent should be deleted, not fixed, as the only way to discourage promotionalism ; accidentally or mistakenly promotional writing needs to be fixed, and the availability of draft space provides a place for fixing it in those cases where it cannot be done immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to DGG's comment above: I generally take these comments as healthy criticism of an imperfect and growing article. Grand'mere Eugene (mostly) and I (to a lesser extent) have continued to improve the article and introduce new source materials. Constructive feedback is very welcome, though I don't think in this case it justifies deletion. For my !vote:

Keep: Ternyik has been the central subject of articles in the Register-Guard, the Oregonian, Oregon Coast Magazine, The Daily Astorian, and a number of more local papers. These articles span both policy-focused articles centering on his work, and personality/feature style articles. Dozens of other articles treat his work as a significant component, if not their central concern. Books and academic publications have noted his work as well. I realize that Wikipedia editors may have difficulty evaluating many of these articles, as they are not available on the open web; but libraries and newspaper archiving services do contain them, so they amply meet the requirements of WP:V. The notion that "local" papers do not count toward notability is not captured in Wikipedia policy; but even so, it would be inaccurate to describe the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the Capital Journal (aka Statesman Journal), or the Daily Astorian as "merely local." These are all longstanding papers with readership and coverage well beyond their own municipalities, and the first two have won significant awards.

I encourage fellow editors to consult the Wikipedia article (a longtime GA) on The Register-Guard, which has won multiple regional and statewide awards, was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, was one of only four papers nationally to take a stand against actions of the McCarthy committee in the 1950s, and has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service. Though this paper happens to cover the county Ternyik lived in, it is no mere local paper. Like the better-known Oregonian, it has covered Ternyik on a number of occasions, but the 2006 news article "For years, Wilbur Ternyik has been a powerful advocate for the Oregon Coast" appears to be the most comprehensive profile published, and provides a thorough overview of his career. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to email the text of this article.

I appreciate the feedback that has come in this discussion, though much of it might have been more helpful as commentary on the talk page. I believe the article has improved substantially during the AfD period based on the concerns raised. (Expanding number and quality of sources, stating core of notability claim more clearly, and including a bit of commentary critical of Ternyik's approach.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep...meet GNG Emily Khine (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that there is a substantive, reliably-sourced article about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 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. SoWhy 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Setna[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The page needs WP:Cleanup, but the subject is known for roles in three separately notable films, and passes WP:NACTOR. See their IMDb page for relevent films. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot is based on sources that are just listings, and the rest is mostly original synthesis. Lack of important third party, reliable sources on the subject. The use of many references looks like masking. ———Chalk19 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR he did not play a significant role to pass NACTOR and his role was marginal both in Bridget Jones's Diary (film) as per this and this and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although not known for playing major parts, he is very recognisable to British viewers due to his roles in popular TV programmes such as It Ain't Half Hot Mum and In Sickness and in Health as well as other TV shows and films. This is due the paucity of Asian actors for many decades (until maybe the 1990s), and he therefore appeared disproportionately in many productions playing Asian roles from the 1960s to 1980s (you see can that in IMDb). As a result, he is frequently mentioned in books and articles about Asians in British television and films - [40][41][42][43] (and should remain so in the future). He therefore qualifies under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:43, 3 July 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. SoWhy 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers[edit]

Mijntje Lückerath-Rovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Economist and academic that falls a little short of our general notability criteria or the notability requirements for academics. The three references provided are her personal web page at TIAS School for Business and Society where she works (useful but not independent of the subject), her LinkedIn page (not as useful and still not independent of the subject) and her PhD thesis (pretty much useless). Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Believe she more than meets the requirements under Academics if not the General Notability guidelines as shown here at Google News [44] and in addition Google Scholar [45]. ShoesssS ^Talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, a single article with 280 cites over more than a decade, with the next highest citation count in the teens, does not appear to meet notability criteria, and nothing else in the article signifies any of the other qualities of NSCHOLAR have been met. And other than mere mentions, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I’m sorry but an article as recently as of November 2017 in the New York Times as shown here [46]. With additional news coverage from other Third party – Reliable sources as recently as of April 2018, as shown here, [47] makes me ask, “What is necessary, from your standards, to meet the threshold? Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That NY TImes article does not constitute significant coverage. Lückerath-Rovers is quoted in the last two paragraphs, that's it. Pichpich (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, and I know I am been thick headed here, but what constitutes “Significant” coverage? For me personally, if I am covered by the New York Times – BNR Newsradio and Het Financieele Dagblad I want a page here too . ShoesssS ^Talk 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Clearly that's not the case. In that NYT article, the main topic is clearly Beatrix Ruf and you could us it as a source in the article on Ruf. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 14 July 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. SoWhy 10:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Wawira[edit]

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

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

Individual fails notability criteria for WP:ACTOR. All acting roles have been insignificant or in non-notable short films. Any coverage appears to be personal anecdote and promotional. When their most recent listed film role is "Victim #1", a clear case of WP:TOOSOON is indicated. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not sure I have ever seen someone who fails notability so absolutely fully.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the article needs to be updated with more recent info. Clearly the article needs clean up. Sone of the movies written on the filmography section are not notable 197.237.54.31 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — 197.237.54.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have reverted your additions in the article that linked film names to other incorrect film pages. Please do not introduce deliberate errors. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:02, 14 July 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. SoWhy 10:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Gill[edit]

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

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

Totally unsourced article, WP:PROMO, no mention of this person at all in a news search.[48]

Massive WP:COPYVIO of her booking agent.[49] Minor TV role doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. I can't see what there is to salvage here. — JFG ^talk 17:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G12. The majority of the article is copied and pasted from the nominator's link. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering the article history, it's more likely that the London Speaker Bureau page linked from the nomination copied the contents of the article. The person still isn't notable, and the article is original research. Newslinger (talk) 13:39, 17 July 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 Author blanked article, G7. - TNT ^💖 20:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pema Browne[edit]

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

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

Non-notable artist/publisher lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. A google search fail to provide any info of substance. reddogsix (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 10 July 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 The O.C. characters. SoWhy 10:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Harper[edit]

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

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

I am nominating this article for redirect to the List of The O.C. characters because it appears to be Fancruft and lacks secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – Great call. However, you did not have to bring it to AFD to do a Merge/Redirect. You could have placed this thought process on the articles Talk Page and after a week or two, and no one objects, go ahead and make the Merge/Redirect. Just some insight for future situations. Now that process has started on the AFD, let it go through, and if the consensus is to Merge/Redirect and you would like to do it…..I’ll give you a hand. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the List of The O.C. characters Aoba47 (talk) 09:31, 13 July 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 The O.C. characters. SoWhy 10:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Cooper[edit]

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

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

I am nominating this article for redirect to the List of The O.C. characters because it appears to be Fancruft and lacks secondary sources Shaneymike (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the List of The O.C. characters; if you wanted this to be redirected, then you could have done it yourself. AfDs are typically forums in which the nominator wants the article deleted, full stop period. Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect but I echo Aoba47's comments. Alternatively, find and add sources and we can keep the article. Although not with some of the excesses I just removed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I've taken the initiative and redirected a lot of the other character articles to the list after reading Aoba47's comment with regards to a One Tree Hill article that I nominated last month as well as another user's comment with regards to my nomination of the Johnny Harper article. Sorry, if this seems excessive with regards to these types of articles. I just figured that was playing it safe rather than arbitrarily redirecting.Shaneymike (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely understand your point; I do the same thing tbh. It is a good idea to play it safe. An AfD consensus also discourages users from reverting redirects (which I have noticed more often occurring when I just do it on my own accord). Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One can always WP:BOLDy redirect and then, if reverted, take it to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good point. Thank you for the response. I have always been curious about how to handle situations where redirects are reverted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If It Were You, We'd Never Leave[edit]

If It Were You, We'd Never Leave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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